ok. i am tired of AOLs bulls***. enough is enough. either they allow trillian to work, or i am bombing them. i am sick and tired of AOHELLs bulls***. i HATE aol crap but i use the AIM, sometimes. not often. however i wanna be able to use it. now i got booted off and i have to wait a while to be able to sign on again. btw, tired of those aol ****ing CDs? go to http://www.nomoreaolcds.com and check it out. i'd deliver a bomb to those bas****s. anyone wanna help me? let's kill them once and for all.

Dude, you can't say these kinds of things since 9-11. I personally didn't take your threat literally, and hope nobody else did (like AOL, or the FBI).

i know... lol. i just don;t like aolhell. i don;t have the kind of money to do that anyway and still i wouldn;t be able to do it if i had. i am not a terrorist. aohell are more terorists than any of us. it's just a monopoly.

True... ne1 have key's to a 747 we need to fly it into AOL HQ! But Microsoft is gunna own them anyway... cause you cant sue the company who made you as big as you are.. and not get bought, or taken.

Business 101, AOL is bigger than MSFT.

The only think AOL CD's are good for is to keep the boxes for my backup and trow the cd in the trach....

if you have more boxes send them over and I'll use them...

You guys are nazi post deleters!

Just how many accounts have you made so far fewt? =)

OMG Nate, please look at the logs and inform bonehead here that I didn't make that post. Chris, you know I wouldn't have had that light of a tone.

Actually, Betanews can do what they want about keeping or removing posts. Did you ever read

"Please Note: BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

This is printed right above the box for making your post. If you do not agree, do not post, do not cry about it. This is Betanews' web site, and they have the right to remove offensive posts if they want.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

'bonehead' was kidding. You haven't started using the word nazi yet, closest to it is communism =)

I'm sorry, that is among the only words that you will NEVER hear from me.

eheheheh, I'll make a note, things you will never hear from fewt:

1) I admit I'm wrong
2) nazi

I'll admit when I'm wrong, you just need to prove that I am first. :-P

If you asked me if I liked America Online, I would say no. I don't. I have certain issues with them, and do not tend to support them very often. AIM is a different story. As was previously stated by Russ, AIM has remained rather bloat-free, quite in contrast to other services such as MSN, Yahoo, and ICQ (Which, coincedentally, is owned by AOL). The product is supported by the advertisements it displays, and insecure as it may be, they are right when they say that software such as Trillian brings certain security issues into question. AOL designed the service, and maintains it, and it is their right to limit how it is accessed, and if it is accessed at all. I do not have a problem with Trillian supporting IM clients that willingly allow third party software to connect to it's servers, but if AOL doesn't want to be accessable through Trillian, then that is how it should be. If you want to get on AIM, use AIM, and suffer through the ads. I think you can handle the tiny little ad windows in return for free access to one of the most widely used IM services on the net.

Sure, AOL's legally in the right. They own the servers; they can restrict whoever they want from them.

But Microsoft owns the Hotmail.com servers, too. They could legally block anyone who's using ad-buster software. They're perfectly legally within their rights to block Netscape and Opera users from accessing Hotmail if they want. Heck, they own the SMTP servers for the MSN.com and Hotmail.com domains; they could chose to block AOL.com addresses from communicating with any of their domains, if they chose. It's their right. They could firewall all AOL dialup customers if they wanted; they have legal grounds to stop 'intrusions' from 'unwanted users' onto their servers.

However, if Microsoft took any of those actions, it would be challenged in court, I guarantee you.

Legal right does not make moral right. Especially when the company in question was told by the FCC to open up AIM to third-party clients without putting horrific restrictions on them, as one of the conditions of the AOL/Time Warner merger; since AOL owned AIM and ICQ there were monopoly concerns. AOL played slick legalese tricks and got out of the condition set on them; their moral ground is already pretty shaky, in my opinion.

But hey, I think it would be fun to watch AOL's response if Microsoft blocked AOL networks from everything they owned. I'll bet you anything AOL would whine unfair practice even though Microsoft owns the servers. Funny how the tune will change when the shoe's on the other foot... ;)

--Rachel

Sorry guys, but I have to say that AOL is in the right here. If Trillian wants to offer a service similar to AOL Instant Messenger without ads, that is as user-friendly (or more) than Instant Messenger, and is overall better - go for it. But to piggy back on AOL Instant Messenger's user base gained by the massive amounts of advertising and marketing that AOL did to attract those users, amounts to little more than theft.

The Open Source and Freeware movements need to get a grip. This is about making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly.

IT IS NOT ABOUT PIGGY-BACKING ON NON-OPEN-SOURCE or advertisement paid-for programs.

Im sick and tired of this. Why wont you give it to AOL - they created a program that is comfortable, accessible, widely available, and made it relatively free (aside from the ads youll be - OMG - forced to view).

They have kept the program relatively bloat free - look at ICQ for comparison - and other than protect themselves from people who are trying to steal their earned profits.

Heres an example of what Trillium is doing.

You guys watch tv every now and then, right? well, what if you wrote a program on some fancy machine that recorded all the major channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN), cut out their ads and re-broadcast it for free? In the Trillium game, they do the same thing to AOL, it is just that the tv stations are pay-for or ad-based clients and the tv shows are actually the conversations that one could have on their network with their software.

Make an independent product that is better and will make people turn to a third party program, I challenge Trillium.

Russ

Can you say...

A VCR with commercial skip?

A rmeote control that allows you to change channels during a commercial break?

How about ReplayTV? Or the many others that are similar that allow you to "pause live tv", "skip commercials", etc.

Ad bypassing has been done in other medias. The net is no different, "Pop up killers", "fake proxy servers to remove ads", etc.

Do you work for AOL? I have to ask because this:

"making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly."

was just magical! You're right of course. AOL is continually improving AIM out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. They don't care about market share, greed, having a monopoly etc etc. Sarcasm over.

Exactly what market do they have a monopoly in? Why are they an evil company? Is it because of that tossing AOL disks out of a plane bit?

> Exactly what market do they have a monopoly in?
"intention of monopoly.", And I said "They don't care about ... having a monopoly".

> Why are they an evil company?
Well for starters they are the King and Queen when it comes to SPAM. Secondly, and given your position on Open Source you'd have to agree, they try and make everything AOL-proprietary. Their dialer, their software, you just about name it.

> Is it because of that tossing AOL disks out of a plane bit?
No.

And please, that comment was simply magical. If anyone were to say the same thing but stick 'Microsoft' at the front, e.g.:

Microsoft "is about making better products, that can be personally improved and offered to others for free, without the motivations of greed and the intention of monopoly."

We'd never hear the end of it from you.

I simply wanted to know why AOL was viewed as an evil company. ;-) We all know why Microsoft is already.

Russ, the problem is that AOL owning AIM and ICQ - and claiming they are planning to combine them into a single network - was ruled to be a monopoly by the FCC. They ordered AOL to open the AIM protocol and servers to third-party programs...and AOL found a loophole and thumbed their nose at the FCC.

To use your television analogy, imagine if a single company went and bought all of the major television networks and then controlled advertising rates, forced standards changes...basically threw their weight around. Sure, you might still have some independents like UPN, but they'd be getting flattened by this giant behemoth monopoly. That's what AOL is trying to make with their IM services.

OK . . . . but who the **** is Trillium?

Personally I don't understand why AOL makes such a big deal over someone being able to chat with their customers. Do they honestly believe that their chat program is the reason why people switch to their service?

The only purpose this serves is to tick off people, and tick off their own customers.

AOL should just shut up and quit sueing people that is a was of their money. Especially since they are also sueing Microsoft. LOL aol is lame

RIGHT ON!!!! There just making a bad name for themself and no wonder everyone is against them.

I always read 'AOL' as an abbreviation for 'a******'. If you try saying is as a word, it sounds like 'A-hole'. Quite appropriate I think. ;)

It's not about about advertising $$$. It sure as heck isn't about "security". What it *is* about is ensuring the integrity of the AOL brand. We saw it when msnm first came out. For the first time, AOL was threatened with a "real" alternative to AIM, superior in the sense that you could quit using "AOL" software and still chat with your AOL friends. It's childish paranoia, but AOL knows that if they allow people the choice of not using *their* software, people will realize they don't *have* to, and probably choose something else.

I agree 100%. But I do believe ad money is a non-significant reason for their stubbornness in fighting Trillian.

But yeah, AIM-paranoia is, in fact, what made AOL lose $150million when they bought ICQ. All ICQ was (in the beginning) -- it was a Buddy List clone program for all Internet users, not just AOL users. AOL could have made AIM available ISP-wide when ICQ started gaining momentum, but obviously wanted users to be forced to use AOL-ISP if they wanna instant-chat to their little "buddies" on AOL (and everyone knew someone on AOL then, ... actually now too). Eventually they realized that their AOL users may actually use ICQ instead of AIM due to more features and just friends outside of AOL, so they 1. opened AIM. 2. bought ICQ.

But this time they're gonna lose no matter WHAT they do. The Napster saga proves this. "Software-loyalty" is as nonexistent as green horses. Napster died, Morpheus lives. If enough of your buddies on MSN Messenger, you'll install the proggie yourself or use Trillian to talk to them, your ICQ buddies, and your Yahoo buddies...

AOL is counting on their users stupidity, and unwillingness to try "something new". What Trillian needs to do is cater to those stupid masses and give them retarded features that'll attract them. Like maybe animated gif emoticons, built-in Text-to-speech and other crap that would make the morons willing to try Trillian.

God forbid, no! Last thing be need is Trillian to become a bloatware. Just look what happened to ICQ, they added some brainded features and soon enough AOL bought them. Trillian developers sould realize that usability and reliability are what makes a program great, not "branding" or loads of useless bells and whistles.

If Trillian is so da*n good, why cant they simply convince users of other programs to turn over to use trillian? Thats the issue, that is all that AOL can call Trillian out for.

If the open-source free-software movement would just come up with a product that would legitimately steal away customers rather than illegitimately (as in, have them choose trillian rather than aolim) we wouldnt have to deal with any of this.

come on.

Trillian isn't OSS. This is a company that expects to make money somehow off the work of others. None of the OSS clients have been affected. In my OPINION something is wrong with Trillian if AOL can block Trillian so easily, yet the Open Source clients aren't effected.

Trillian *IS* so darn good. It incorporates multiple IM's into the one package - which is brilliant for those people that have contacts on more than one IM. Not only do you not need to run several programs, Trillian also uses up less memory than running each of the IM's separately.

How do they "expect" to make money, when all they ask for is "donations"?

For now.

And, you have some evidence that states in the future Trillian will charge for their program?

Or, is this just another one of your opinions.

I don't remember stating that it was a fact. You assume too much.

>

Trillian *is* that good. In case you hadn't noticed, Trillian supports not only AIM, but MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and even IRC. And many users of those have also converted to trillian.

>

Ok, now here you're just not making cents. Trillian is not open source. And your differentiating between "legal" and "illegal" means is preposterous. Trillian has *no* service of its own. It is merely a *client*. And how would they go about "legally"? I chose Trillian because it would perform the functions of several other IM apps I used. I've got MSN, ICQ, Yahoo accounts, as well as AIM. Those are valid accounts. If I have a username:password to a system, I'm usually validated. FTP sites don't care what client you use, POP3 server don't either. Why has AOL, in a number of cases, put work into breaking *certain* clients?

I'm too tired for the history lesson, maybe next time.

Scott and Kevin have been pretty up-front about their plans for Trillian, from what I've seen? Scott's said they plan to always keep it free and empty of ads...but that if things settle down, they've considered licensing branded custom-versions of Trillian to ISPs for their users and such. Much like AT&T's IMAnywhere thing, only using Trillian.

And yah. Webservers allow multiple browsers to connect, POP3/IMAP servers allow multiple mail clients to connect, FTP servers allow multiple FTP clients to connect...why is it so wrong if any of them wanted to block a client, but yet totally right for AOL? That's what I don't understand...when Microsoft blocked Netscape from Hotmail (supposedly unintentionally), people were screaming bloody murder. NO one justified Microsoft's legal right to do so, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the Hotmail network and servers just like AOL owns the AIM one. Yet when AOL blocks Trillian, the AOL supporters appear.

It just seems to me like 'Microsoft' in a situation immediately makes the company the bad-guy, whereas if you put 'AOL' into the same situation some people would change their tune. Human nature's weird. :/

--Rachel

Because I am not using the offical AOL Web Browser I can not access any of their sites! Yeah Right! Why do that with the IM client?

All they need to do is use encryption with their product, and if Trillian breaks it or attempts to circumvent it, the Millennium Digital Act will make them criminals.

Then again, AOL isn't supposed to be encrypting those msgs, since they promised to use the universal IM protocol, as a condition for their Time Warner merge...so slim chances of that.

Legally, I doubt what they're doing will be considered as hacking. The AIM user explicitly gives the user+password. It may be ABUSE of resources, but that's tough to argue, since one email msg with an attachment of a nude pic of my anus to an AOL user will take up more "resources" than me IM'ing to that user for hmmm about 50 years straight. ;)

So AOL can go to hell. I think I will call them (to protest) and record the conversation. If I post it on the web (the audio) I hope it'll get other ppl to do the same in order to let AOL know that WE ARE NOT gonna give up so easily (like MS did).

I've been reading the comments here about the use of AOL's servers without their client but what about when you use a client to logon to IRC? I like the idea of having a choice about what client I want to use and not have ads thrown at me all the time. Trillian offers the ability to logon to multiple chat accounts simultanously and comes with all the features for each client. AOL will only be isolating themselves if they leave their users with few options.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see AOL bless the effort that's being put into the Trillian application. However I feel it's arrogant to assume that it's OK to connect to AOL's servers with a non AOL supported client without so much as asking if it's ok. It's like half these guys would walk into your house because the doors were unlocked thinking it's ok. My point (and I have infact made it over and over) is that the servers belong to AOL, if AOL changes the protocol, maybe Cerulean Studios should stop, take the hint, and ask AOL's permission to build their app to work with the AIM servers. I don't see any of the other applications breaking, makes you wonder why. I think everyone here that sides with Trillian does so, only because they feel AOL is a bad company. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Was it arrogant of you to not ask Betanews if it was ok for you to connect to their website with whatever you choice of browser is? They never gave you permission did they? Did you just ASSUME it was OK?

You say things like "maybe they should stop" and "take the hint". AOL could end all of this by changing the USage Agreement to prohibit non-AOL client software. Until they do, it's all just bluster on their part.

If AOL chooses to not follow proper channels in order to reach their goals (changing the UA), then why shoudl anyone give any credence to their bluster in the news?

I'm sorry? If they changed their webcode so my browser didn't work properly, I'd simply change browsers. It's really that simple. I'd also send a message to them informing them that their code was broken. If they replied that they didn't support my browser, well hey I could and would respect that. That's *THE* major difference between maturity and immaturity my friend.

So you change browsers every time you go to a site that doesn't respond? I highly doubt it.

The other big difference is "If they replied that they didn't support my browser" AOL has not communicated (officially, or properly) to ANY of their users that they do not want connections via Trillian.

You once again overlooked a very important fact. I did not say that I would wait for them to herd me like a sheep. I would contact them.

That's a personal choice for you.

Not a legal, moral, or ethical requirement for AIM users who use Trillian howwver, so irrelevant to this case.

my god fewt i agree with you! (thats a first lol)

i think that the makers of Trillian could of at least ASKED AOL if they could connect. As for the user talking about accessing this website?! Well sorry but that is the most stupid point i have EVER heard, a website (unless otherwise stated) is for public access, AOL's servers are private access and can only be accessed by users who are members (have username and password) and use the AOL Client's, I think AOL are perfectly within there right to block the users and i think Trillian are acting like children rushing to get a new patch out every day to bypass it again, if AOL want to block let them block, at the end of the day all it will do is force more and more users to not use AOL at all! (we are talking the very long run tho :P)

:-)

That's the ethical and moral choice, I'm sorry if you feel that morals and ethics aren't required in your decisionmaking process. Perhaps you are a lawyer afterall, then again if you were, you would provide solid links to hard evidence instead of expecting us to believe your word as fact.

I have a lot of trouble accepting a moral and ethical argument from the person who just two days ago defended his use of profanity in this forum despite the fact the BEtaNEws specifically says "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

I'll listen to your comments on morals and ethics when you demonstrate some.

Perhaps by complying with BetaNews's wishes and not using any foul language or personal attacks from this point forward.

THAT would give you some credibility.

"AOL's servers are private access and can only be accessed by users who are members (have username and password)..."

correct so far

"...and use the AOL Client's"

and where did you get that from? Where does is say what client you can and cannot use to access AOL's servers?

Since you don't like the web browser comment made by someone, I'll give you a much better one. Think of a private USENET server, one you have to pay for, and when you do you receive a login and password so that you can access their server. Are you only allowed to access their server with a special client or can you connect to it using any client you want? And shouldn't you be able to connect using any client you want?

Yeah right.. please ASK?? Did you really think AOL was going to open their doors and say sure.. c'mon right in guys. No! AOL is a hog that just wants to keep all the money coming their way. The only reason they don't want their users using a different client is because they want the advertising profits. I like the comment that compared it to using a different web browser. AOL should not (IMO) make it so it's users cannot connect using other options.

If that were the case, all of the other non-AOL AIM clients would have been effected don't ya think?

I wasn't aware that I'd lose my credibility by standing firm by my belief in the 1st amendment.

Fewt, you say "If they changed their webcode so my browser didn't work properly, I'd simply change browsers"

I don't see you doing that, considering I think you were one of the main ones wanting to crucify MS when other browsers for a short time wouldn't access the MSN home page? MS got blasted for supposedly setting things that only their MSN.com site only supporting IE?
Sounds like the same thing AOL is doing, and yet those trying to get to AIM with other software are in the wrong?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I recall commenting on it, sure I blasted them for it, but I also remember stating that it was Microsoft's right to do so. If Microsoft only allowed MSN client to connect to their servers, I'd have no problem with that. If Microsoft only allowed IE to go to Microsoft.com, so be it. Actually it would just give me another item to use against it at the conference table. ;-)

Uh, BetaNews owns this server and can put whatever usage restrictions they want on it.

It is not a protected public forum and free speech alaims under the first amendment do not apply.

But it's interesting that YOU are now the one claiming that you can do anything you want on a server that you do not own.

Funny, I said below that you would bring that up. ++$score{'Fewt'};

if you was paying for access to the private news server then yes you should have more rights over what news client you use to connect but otherwise it's entirely upto the service provider, they are the ones providing the service, paying for the massive amount of news data and the space required.

noone pays to use the AIM service, it isn't your right to get access, it's a privellege. their client provides income via advertising to support the servers.. just because AOL is a huge company that has profits coming in elsewhere everyone seems to think that should cover the server costs, it would be different if they were a sole AIM company and no other income to cover the servers.

i can relate because i run the Napigator service, and pay thousands of dollars per month for bandwidth for a free service for the users. the income to pay for the bandwidth comes from the advertising in the client (which doesn't even cut it now, thats how bad advertising is at moment). unlike AOL we have somewhat opened up our service to 3rd party developers to integrate with their own Napster clients however what if someone comes along and makes an exact clone of my client with no advertising, using my server list which comes from my bandwidth. should i not be pissed off because they are leeching my bandwidth, bragging how their client is better because it's ad free, and the only reason it's ad free is because they are using my servers and bandwidth coming out of my pocket instead of their own?

the situation is exactly the same with websites and ad blockers, everyone only thinks about their rights.. i have the right to ad free browsing, how dare they use my bandwidth. what about how dare you use the webmasters bandwidth without contributing a cent and disrespecting their rights to support their service via advertising. i think $15 for a drivein movie is too much, does that give me the right to not pay.. the only right it gives me is to not use the service in question and respect the owners wishes even if i disagree with them.

AOL sees little ad revenue from AIM, I'm sure.

I'll go a step further, however. I would have no problem with AIM's actions /if AOL had not been told to open their IM protocol/. Instead, they found a legal loophole to keep it closed.

If the government had not already said 'by owning AIM and ICQ both, you have a dangerous monopoly on the IM world...you need to open up AIM' and had AOL thumb its collective corporate nose at them, I would actually say AOL had every right...even if it was inconvenient for me. But because AOL defied a ruling along those lines, I consider the burden of moral and ethical justification on THEM, not on Trillian users.

Admittedly, I am only human. After getting tired of having to have three IM clients open and sucking RAM, perhaps I am biased in my views on this situation given that Trillian really was a godsend. ;)

But AOL ignored the Cerulean Studios folks - and, I think, the Cerulean folks' attempts to contact them - until Trillian was making news. From what I know, I think Scott and Kevin made a good-faith effort to work with AOL... Honestly, there was a discussion on the beta channel on IRC for the concept of giving the code for SecureIM, the encrypted AIM message option Trillian has, to AOL for the AIM client in exchange for peaceful coexistance with Trillian. LONG before the blocking. AOL didn't deign to acknowledge Trillian's existance until it was making news, from what I know. And then they showed they wanted to play Microsoft's game. :)

fewt, you seem like an intelligent person (even if you have an amazing talent for posting well-worded and well-thought-out posts which are guaranteed to be flamebait on a forum like this). I pose to you a question:

You say in another post that if Microsoft wants to block Netscape browsers from Hotmail, you'll object but they have every right - you'd just use it against them in arguments. Yet the (perhaps mistaken) impression I get from many of your posts here is that while you think in the Microsoft/Hotmail situation, Microsoft is the one morally in the wrong...in this situation, you think Trillian is. I'm curious why the difference? Is it just because of a personal grudge against MS, and you're trying to give AOL the benefit of the doubt which you wouldn't accord MS, or what?

This isn't a troll-post, I'm genuinely curious. :)

--Rachel

Hrm...the end of that was slightly incoherent. Never try to post on a web forum while talking on the phone to arrange where to pick up an out-of-town friend who's arriving. :)

What I meant to say is, fewt...you seem to make an effort to write well-thought-out and well-worded arguments but from a viewpoint which will be controversial, and often containing elements which are guaranteed to provoke a flamebait response. You don't seem unintelligent, so I'm curious why there is this perceived dichotomy in your MS and AOL views.

I just realized it read like 'well-worded and well-thought-out' posts were flamebait in and of themselves. :)

--Rachel

"fewt, you seem like an intelligent person (even if you have an amazing talent for posting well-worded and well-thought-out posts which are guaranteed to be flamebait on a forum like this). I pose to you a question:"

WOW, Thx ;-)

"You say in another post that if Microsoft wants to block Netscape browsers from Hotmail, you'll object but they have every right - you'd just use it against them in arguments. Yet the (perhaps mistaken) impression I get from many of your posts here is that while you think in the Microsoft/Hotmail situation, Microsoft is the one morally in the wrong...in this situation, you think Trillian is."

Absolutely, if AOL and Cerulean Studios roles were reversed I would label gladly AOL the bad guy. I wouldn't label Microsoft as an entirely bad company, I however strongly disagree with the methods they have used to s*** their company around for the past few years.

" I'm curious why the difference? Is it just because of a personal grudge against MS, and you're trying to give AOL the benefit of the doubt which you wouldn't accord MS, or what?"

I have no personal grudge against Microsoft, I understand that they are a company and like to make money like everyone else. I do have a grudge over some of their actions. I would gladly give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt if I felt they deserved it. (Like the blank password in SQL 7, sure it's HUGE but anyone could have made it.)

"This isn't a troll-post, I'm genuinely curious. :) "

Is all good, I'd answer it if it was a troll, however I almost missed it, as I haven't paid much *REAL* attention to this article since it grew past 200 messages ( haha ).

" What I meant to say is, fewt...you seem to make an effort to write well-thought-out and well-worded arguments but from a viewpoint which will be controversial, and often containing elements which are guaranteed to provoke a flamebait response. You don't seem unintelligent, so I'm curious why there is this perceived dichotomy in your MS and AOL views."

Actually, I simply post my opinion on things the way I see them. I don't try to hide behind the fact that I may get flamed for my point of view. I don't often go out of my way to word anything to intentionally provoke a flamewar, that's just part of me being me. ;-)

"I just realized it read like 'well-worded and well-thought-out' posts were flamebait in and of themselves. :)"

They can be without the author ever realizing it. ;-)

I made a link to Trillian from my site....

Goto http://members.rogers.com/shodgi5656 & click on Links.

Show AOL that we're going to win this war....link up with Trillian and be heard.

agreed. the more users, the better. i've thrown some links up on my homepage as well. :)

I am kinda foggy on who is doin what as far as I/M. goes but dont you have to have a valid aim account to put it into trillian? and if that is the case if you do have a valid account how are you (stealing bandwidth or what ever) you are still using your valid account with aim just not using thier software basically . please correct me if I am wrong like I said not real sure but this just kinda made me wonder
Joe

You are correct, you have to have an AIM name and password to logon to AIM thru Trillian.

Having a login/pw (account) with AOL for IM service means exactly squat. Your membership brings them no money. Your usage of their service costs them money. No, I'm not siding with them, but I'm explaining their point of view. They (in theory) require the revenue from the advertising that they build into their own software in order to pay for the servers. A good example- ICQ. An ad-supported messaging service that wouldn't still be around if they hadn't made it that way. Granted, AOL The Conglomerate Giant doesn't "need" any more income from ads; but do you really expect them to allow use of their servers for "free?"

They (in theory) require the revenue from the advertising that they build into their own software in order to pay for the servers. A good example- ICQ. An ad-supported messaging service that wouldn't still be around if they hadn't made it that way.

And that is in large part why I don't use ICQ anymore. ICQ98 and prior versions were fast, and to the point. They provided a way of talking to friends and family. Now for me, the choice comes down to using Trillian, and maintaining some contact with my friends on the old service, or abandoning everyone, and moving to MSN. For many reasons I still prefer Trillian, but if AOL keeps blocking me, I'll have no reason to stick with Trillian. This isn't going to convert me to a AIM deciple, it's only going to piss me off.

As of 2-9-02 9:50 pm eastern time, AOL blocks them again. Who has more stamina? Trillian, Trillian users or AOL??? I will keep updating trillian...doesnt bother me. I think trilian should ad a small updater that just downloads a component or something.

Keep in mind that each time this happens, not everyone is blocked. Mine still works fine.

They are only releasing patches now, it is basically a new aim.dll file that will overwrite the other.

AOL wants you to use AIM, not Trillian, not any other 3rd party software, the same reason they fight against ad-buster programs; they can't spam you with ads on Trillian. They can't have constant "Try AOL Now" or paid adverts blinking, flashing, and annoying the heck out of us (and putting $ in AOL's pockets). I use AIM, but I use it in conjunction with DeadAIM- a simple program that removes the annoying ads and banners. It's a compromise between using a nice prog like Trillian, and actually being able to reliably log onto AOL's IM servers. If Trillian allowed AOL to stick all their banners and ads in their software, I'm betting AOL would be fine with them.

Blocking Trillian prevents Trillian users from communicating with AOL users...so what about the poor AOL users who want to communicate with Trillian users??? Isn't AOL shooting themselves in the foot? If I was forced to use AOL and didn't manage to hang myself first, I'd use Trillian over IM anyway...it's simply a better designed and more functional client. Imagine if users of AOL could only surf on web servers that they actually owned...oh how limited their lives would be...then again, I'd doubt they'd know any difference.

Uhhhh AIM users aren't required to be AOL ISP customers.

Uhm, that's not what he said. There's this simpel thing, it's called "reading".

Oh? How did you read

"Imagine if users of AOL could only surf on web servers that they actually owned...oh how limited their lives would be...then again, I'd doubt they'd know any difference."

then? I didn't realize that AIM clients were web browsers.

AOL isn't the only company who is blocking third-party chat software. Yahoo has been partially blocking others from using voice chat in clients other than it's own Messenger software for quite some time. Check out this site: http://nowayinhell.net/~.../yahelite/yahelite.html for the full story on what their users have been going through. The bottom line? AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, and MSN Messenger are FREE. What right are we, as non-paying users, expressing when we try to tell them how we want them to run their FREE service. I hate AOL. Don't get me wrong. But, in this case I fell that they have every right to block whatever they want. Rather than looking at it from the users view, look at this situation as if YOU were the software designer and supplier of the server. How would you like it if someone stole your work and server space without your permission? At least there should be an agreement made between AOL and the makers of Trillian so that this dispute can end. Trillian is a good idea (as was Odigo) and the future of IM's and compatability should be addressed but done so with consent.

In your OS's hosts file:

# death to aim ads
0.0.0.0 ads.web.aol.com
0.0.0.0 todayvip6.aim.com
0.0.0.0 ads.msn.com
0.0.0.0 aim.com
0.0.0.0 affiliate.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r01.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r02.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r03.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp-r04.blue.aol.com
0.0.0.0 free.aol.com
0.0.0.0 hometown-art.aol.com
0.0.0.0 ads.icq.com
0.0.0.0 aimtoday.aol.com
0.0.0.0 bucp1-vip-m.blue.aol.com

Can anyone else add to this crap list? I hate AOL's crap flooding crap spamming garbage crap. Death to ads.

By the way, I did in fact write to AOL, and complain. They do listen.

My argument was this.. Open standards are "the way," the Tao of computing. Computers are useless without open standards. gopher://, ftp://, http:// and so to be , message:// , the open standard will conquer proprietary trash. Has anyone seen what the poor people that use AOL are subjected to? Even the dialer is proprietary, and the connection essentially sucks. AOL is the lowest common denominator, worst of breed ad-spam-pit, and the reign of "terror" can only last so long.

I cant believe that people pay for an ISP that has a goofy non-RFC compliant dialer/PPP protocol. This on top of fake home pages and attempts to corner various spaces on the open internet.

Like it says "users of AOL ", not Users of AIM. Maybe that's where you got confused.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I must have read it wrong the first time through, thanks.

Can I say something here...The internet is open to everyone and NOT controled by one person....and that what AOL is trying to do.

Make your voice heard!!
Link your wedsite to the Trillian homepage.

AOL's AIM servers are *NOT* the internet. I would think AOL would be allow to control their own property if they so choose.

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree. I have use Trillian religiously for about a year and a half and I love it... I have contacts on all of the big 4 IM providers, and Trillian gives me a nice app to do what I want with others... IM, not all the other bloat. But when it comes down to things, really, since AIM is hosted by AOL and it's their servers, they have the right to change their server software anytime they want for any reason. It's just up to the users to make the change their minds, and the only users they listen to are real AOL users, probably about .00001% of them use trillian, if that, so everyone is probably out of luck as far as getting cooperation from AOL. Let's just hope that the Trillian creators are able to keep up with AOL and eventually they will give in. :)

is a joke! IM is as secure as EMAIL... AOL/TW's claim its protecting its user security is bogus! Its plain text communication.. instant email. There needs to be a standard and AOL, while in the right in protecting the usage of its infrastructure, is wrong when it clamis its due to security.. advertising is irrelevant since largely this is advertising for AOL/TW products... no revenue to be lost. Boycotting AOL/TW products is silly too, its a multi-billion dollar company and isn't going to notice a million or so people suddenly not buying the products. The way to fight AOL is to help Trillian in any way you can, post a mirror of the software, make financial support, or just spread the gospel of Trillian... tell your friends, hell, tell your enemies, the more who use it and use it successfully the harder it will be for AOL to ignore and shut them out. Its more effective to flaunt the ability to connect than it is to boycott the company preventing the connection. If it becomes too time consuming and troublesome to block Trillian, and costs too many programmer man-hours that could better be spent elsewhere, they will eventually stop. Scott and Kevin at Trillian are doing a superb job of keeping up with AOL's jiggering with the protocols... they released 3 patches on Friday alone!

The thing to remember is, its not about theft of bandwidth or security of users... its all about a popular alternative client (which until a week or so ago AOL was barely aware of) that does AIM's job better than AIM... its a matter of pride. We have permission to use the AIM servers by virtue of signing up for the service. The choice of client should be ours, not AOL/TW's.

It is all about stealing time on AOL's IM farm, period.

no. its about aol being control freaks (who want to control the whole internet.. well actually to BE the internet). period.

So, you are saying that it has nothing to do with AOL wanting to protect their property? Please explain in more detail.

maybe it could be described as that. but in the merger talks they agreed to work towards an open platform - they are CLEARLY NOT doing that so that is why in my opinion its AOL in the wrong here.

AOL promised an open IM platform.... where is it? where are even the signs that they have started work on this? Any RFCs been submitted yet? nope? hmm

They promised an open platform when they release their "next generation" of software, which probably means they're making a huge revision so that people want to stay w/ AIM rather than go to competition when they open up their servers.

OK Fewt.. explain to me how I am STEALING time on the server farm if I signed up for the service, and would be using AIMclient if Trillian didn't exist? The servers are there. The client exists, but it sucks, so I choose to use an alternative client, one which provides the same level of connectivity as the "official" client, therefore not causing any abnormal server load. How EXACTLY am I stealing bandwidth? Again, I remind you, that I would be using AIM if there wasn't an alternative.

Why didn't anyone argue with you about your comment? ;-)

why is it that AOL just blocks AIM why not ICQ too? and I'm just curious, how many builds did MS release of MSN messenger b4 they gave up? personally, I think AOL is being childish, it's like a little kid who is playing a game and is losing, so they whine and complain, while throwing a tantrum. another thing I find interesting is everyone complain about MS being the big nasty one, but did you see the quote that the spokesperson said, I think MSN is the best messenger out there.

It seems that if AOL decided to sue the creators of Trillian over "bandwidth usage" wouldn't AOl have to see that the bandwidth being used is for connecting AIM subscribers? Im not sure how important the # of users running the AIM client is to AOL, but personally I would be happy to boast the number of subscribers rather than the # of ppl running the client. But as the obvious (to those who know me) would state, I am not AOL. I guess in theory AOL has a right to complain about trillian utilizing their servers but I would love to see AOL back down on this one. Mixed thoughts I guess.

If your upset with the way AOL is blocking Trillian users, Let them know and boycott AOL Messenger. Are they blocking us from sending e-mail to there servers?, NO...AOL is nothing but money hungry and wants to be the ALL MIGHTY!!

its probably not about the money, the bandwidth, the security or anything else that has been mentioned here.

AOL want to OWN the internet. They always have. They want to monopolise it. Hell, they'd prefer it everyone dialed up using an AOL connection and never ventured further than AOLs servers.

I think the thing AOL really hates about this is that AIM pushes people into using other AOL services, so using any other client loses that control over users (I mean, most of the adverts in AIM are for other AOL services/products - a lot of which are also free - so if they are advertising FREE products it CANT be about the money right?!). AOL wants to build a nice high brick wall around its services, so that once they have u, u CANNOT leave (this has been seen many times with how their very proprietry dialup software has made it difficult to dial out to another ISP in several versions of their software).

The worst part about all this is they have done this before with email. I dont know if AOL in america is any better, but here in the UK last time I checked you couldnt even use a standard email client to collect your email, you had to use THEIR client. sound familiar? Im sure yet again they claim that that was to protect their users and enhance the experience etc etc blah blah blah.... only problem is that it stops the users from doing the most simple things like applications which have built in email functionality (winzip/scanner software etc etc) cannot work correctly.

So why can't Trillian enter into a business agreement with AOL? I'm sure lots of people would pay for the right to use AOL's services through Trillian. This way AOL can get paid for the security breach and bandwidth usage. Is anybody at Cerulean talking with AOL about a business partnership?

it'll never happen. trillian users couldnt pay enough to keep aol happy - besides trillian doesnt have huge adds for other AOL services which is all AOL really wants AIM/ICQ for.

I've already paid for Trillian, but I won't pay to use AIM on Trillian. AIM is free anyway. That's a bunch of crap.

I've never used AIM before and probably never will. Of all the IM's out there, I like the old ICQ the best. After AOL took over ICQ, they added ad banners and pops ups and all sorts of junk that made it a bloated IM. Since then, I stopped using ICQ. I'm using trillian now and starting to like it more and more. Its slowly adding all my favorite features from ICQ. So its goodbye ICQ, AIM, MSN, yahoo!! As for everybody else, just stop using AIM. Switch over to ICQ account and use Trillian for it. It only takes a few mouse clicks. And there are no ads! Btw, MSN is the only IM left that doesn't have ad banners. So for MSN users, you can stick with MSN. Maybe thats why MS doesn't have a problem with Trillian. Hope AOL wont buy out Cerulean Studios and put ads in Trillian ;-)

MSN does have ad banners, upgrade to 4.6 and use the addon pack, and bam, the banners are back. Microsoft doesn't care because they were once in Trillian's shoes, alloed their users to chat with AOL users, and AOL cried foul.

As bad as Microsfot is made out to be, they are for open chat, they awlays have been, and always will be. It's AOL that wants to monopolize the way we all use chat clients.

MS is for open chat because it's the easiest way they can get their largest percentage of users. If they were in AOL's position, w/ the largest share of users, then they would obviously also be against an open platform (aka Windows v Linux).

Not true.

Right, MS id for open chat because that's the only way it can compete with AOL, just like bungling IE was the only way it could compete with Netscape. Same tactic, different company. Fortunately (if ForumTroll Fred is correct) they are actually creating open standards. Unfortunately, as soon as their needs are met, the standards will be borged into an MS only solution.

Now whose spinning FUD without ANY evidence to back it up?

Where is your evidence that:

1. Bundling IE was the only way they could compete with Netscape.

2. As soon as their needs are met, the standards will be borged into an MS only solution.

Your challenge right back at you.....provide evidence for these two claims or admit that they are just that "unfounded claims"

Here you go.

1. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
2. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

1. The ruling in the DOJ case NEVER found that IE could ONLY compete with nNetscape through bundling.

2. The ruling in the DOJ case in no way at all allows you to decide in advance what Microsoft's future behavior will be.

So, try again, the link you gave does not provide evidence supporting EITHER of your claims. (If you think it does, then quote the text that says it)

Findings of fact guy: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

" 212. When Gates became aware of what the OEMs were doing, he expressed concern to Kempin, the Microsoft executive in charge of OEM sales. On January 6, 1996, Gates wrote to Kempin: "Winning Internet browser share is a very very important goal for us. Apparently a lot of OEMs are bundling non-Microsoft browsers and coming up with offerings together with Internet Service providers that get displayed on their machines in a FAR more prominent way than MSN or our Internet browser." Less than three weeks later, Kempin delivered his semi- annual report on OEM sales to his superiors. In the report, he identified "Control over start-up screens, MSN and IE placement" as one interest that Microsoft had neglected over the previous six months. The ongoing imbroglio with Compaq was prominent in Kempin's thinking, but he also recognized that establishing control over the boot process was necessary to ensure preferential positioning for MSN and Internet Explorer."

You can actually read parts of the case before you attempt to play them down in the future.

I did read it....did you?

Nowhere in there does it say that bundling was the ONLY method by which IE could compete with Netscape.

It says that that was the method that MS chose, but it does not say that it was the ONLY method that would have worked.

Stick to fact and stop trying to apply a "spin" to it.

And what about the second part of your accusation? Where in there does it prove what Microsoft's future behavior will be with regard to standards?

I posted a sample, read the rest of the findings as well as the rest of the case. It's all there in black and white. If you stumble on the big words, I'm sure you can get mom to read them to you. Don't you think it's a little late for you to be up though? I know you don't have to work tomorrow or anything, but all this fun I've had making you look like a fool has worn me out. See ya.

LOL "made me look like a fool" (hollow laugh)

I notice that you can't provide the requested information, facts, or quotes, so you resort to insults and name calling again.

Run, run away and try to cover the fact that you can't support your case.

As for it being late....that all depends on time zones (you have heard of those, haven't you)

What are you taling about, it's there in plain english. I'm sorry if you have to put any effort into discovery. It's all on you guy. I've laid down the facts, you've chosen to completely ignore them. I'm done with you, I've proven my case 100 times now. There's just nothing more to say to you.

You claimed that:
1. Bundling was the ONLY (repeat only) way that IE could compete with Netscape.

and
2. That you could predict Microsoft's future behavior.

Now you can claim that both of these are in the findings of fact in the DOJ -vs- Microsoft case, but claiming it doesn't make it true.

You tried to support the with a quote from the findings. All that quote said was that IE was bundled as A (see just one) method of competing with Netscape.

When I pointed out that discrepancy for you...you retreated into calline me blind and saying that I couldn't read. You did not, however, provide NAY further evidenct to back up your claims.

lol, that was the most effective way nevertheless...you adding "only" to it doesnt matter whatsoever

I didn't add the word "only".

It was part of fewt's original claim.

I was the one disputing that his statement (which included the world ONLY) was correct.

You obviously know less about the DOJ vs MS case than you do about EULAS and morals. I have no interest in discussing the facts of the MS trial with you.

Could that perhaps be because you can not do as you claimed?

Let me refresh your memory:

You stated "Bundling IE was the only way they could compete with Netscape" and "As soon as their needs are met, the standards will be borged into an MS only solution" (both DIRECT quotes)

When you were challenged for proof of these, you cited the DOJ v. MS case.

Yet you have been unable to show where either of these is proven in that case.

You attempted to prove the first one, but failed as the quotes you gave only showed that MS DID bundle IE as a means of competing with Netscape. You ffailed to show any evidence for the fact that it was the ONLY means of competing.

As for the socond one, I laugh at your allegation that anythign in the DOJ case lets you guarantee what Microsoft's future behavior will be.

I have no interest in discussing the facts of the case with youe either. YOU are the one that claimed that the case proved both of your statements.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it proves either of them.

I don't need to provide proof of my opinion. To think so makes me think that you don't have much of a life.

I'll take the fact that you again choose to with a personal attack rather than provide any evidence to support your claims as final proof that you have no evidence to back them up and that those two statements of yours are 100% false.

Cry for me. That wasn't a personal attack, it was my opinion. I have lots more, wanna hear them?

Sure. Go for it.

We need more of your opinions since it looks like your abusive personall attacks are being cancelled by BetaNews.

At the rate that your posts are disappearing, you need to be making more as fast as oyu can.

So let's back up in this thread. Back up to 4:17PM ET.

I repeated the statements you made and couldn't back up.
I even repeated that you tried to claim that the DOJ v MS case proved them.

I'm still waiting for you to either support those statements (which you said were not opinions, but cold hard facts that you could prove) with some form of evidence.

Actually the request here is for YOU to back up the statements YOU made in this thread.

I even quoted your own words back to you so that you wouldn't have to scroll back as far.

So, like I said "I'm still waiting for you to either support those statements (which you said were not opinions, but cold hard facts that you could prove) with some form of evidence."

A Microsoft spokesperson assured BetaNews they had no plans to follow in AOL's footsteps. "As we've said all along, we believe that the ultimate benefit for consumers is a standard for instant messaging/interoperability among all IM products. MSN continues to work with the IETF and the rest of the industry to make that happen so that consumers can communicate openly and freely with friends and family no matter what instant messaging service they use."

One of the most sensible things Microsft has ever said (and I'm no Microsoft basher). Microsoft understand one of the things that IM needs to really take off is interoperability - and when all parties agree we may be able to message people on all networks.

There is only one spanner in the works at the moment, and that is AOL. We can use MS servers with their full permission, we can use Yahoo's servers, we can use the ICQ servers (funnily enough, AOL own them) but we can't use the AIM servers.

I've seen arguments below that AOL should stop them - it's using their server time.

In that case, it's Microsfts OS, they can bundle what they want with it.

No? I didn't think you'd agree.

I agree 100%.

They should have realized by now that we're sick of their bullcrap AIM client with its ads (yes they can be disabled, but AOL never intended that) and other junk they just keep tacking on. Support Trillian... multiple IM clients is stupid, and Trillian knows this... they're taking a step in the right direction, and we've got to support their efforts!

So you are saying it's OK to steal?

How is that stealing? I don't think anything you agree to when you sign up for AOL says that you have to use their client.

Ok, lemme put this in simpleton terms. Theft: To take that which is not yours without or against the permission of it's owner.

I'll make it even easier

To use AIM you have to sign up to the app.

You then download it and probably install it.

AOL have your email and personal details.

They make money through this! They sell the information on and use it for their other purposes.

If you have the choice of picking 1 of 2 cars from a prize draw which would you pick? The old rust bucket volvo? Or the brand new Porche?

Apply this reasoning to Trillian. If AOL wanna keep people on their crappy app they should improve it, expand it and get rid of the bloated ads etc

AIM file size - 2.47MB
Trillian file size - 2.27MB

Can you now understand why AIM is a big pile of junk?

Oh and regarding the bandwith, server access etc anyone can access anyones space/bandwith unless it is protected by a password etc and by entering your aol username and password you are gaining access to the server legally. Trillian simply routes the functions of AIM through its app. By using Sentinel you can see the AIM Console Window is loaded as it is under AIM alas with a different name.

If Trillian were theiving anything from AOL they would be up in court. Oh and Trillian isn't "stealing" the bandwith, the Trillian users are! Trillian provides a means to connect to the server and you are connected. Yes you!

Therefore AOL would have to hike up every Trillain user into court for "Stealing" their bandwith.

Oh and as some other person said it doesn't really matter which app you connect through you are still using the bandwith.

And if this is all so true regarding the theft then explain why AOL never block access to ICQ. I'll tell you why. ICQ is named as an AOL product and AIM is. AOL can't stand someone beating them at their own game.

My objective rant is now over.

Don't bother to argue with me :) I'm right as I always am :P

It is looking more and more like fewt is a communist, seeing this and the fact that he loves Linux so much :P

jk fewt

You are but a child, literally. You know nothing about communism OR capitolism.

This has nothing to do with the quality of AOL's AIM client, it has everything to do with the fact that AOL doesn't want them entering their home without permission. I don't blame them either.

I think you mean "capitalism".... now who is the (literal) child. You had started to make a point about theft... and while I am an avid Trillian supporter (I even host a mirror for it) you were headed down the right path, I am interested to hear where you were going with the theft idea.

And I do know the difference between communism and capitalism, which is why I was making the observation that some of your views and your prefernce of operating system is communistic.

Using you analogy, if someone gives you the key (login & password) to their house, you may enter ti wearing whatever clothing you like to wear.

If someone told you that you could only wear specific clothing when entering their house not many people would be likely to visit them. So why don't people jsut quit usin AIM, all things AOL suck except WinAMP, but time will tell. Just look at how long WinAMP 3 has been in development. It's like AOL hinders progress. Anyway thats my 2 cents.

Not that I agree with fewt's opinion on the matter, but your argument is pretty weak. Whether or not someone has the "key" (login and password) makes no difference if they do not enter through the front door (AOL's clients). In a sense what Trillian is doing is crawling through the window next to the door, and having the key doesn't make a difference.

And people won't quit using AIM because as long as a small percent stays, the majority of others will to. AIM is one of the best services when compared to the others: it rarely goes down unlike MSN, has a Web-based client, and doesn't have the slowdown that ICQ has. And AIM users can talk to AOL users, which is a pretty important feature for many users.

But that in and of itself poses a problem and where I think fewt has it wrong. AOL has an extremely strong hold on the IM community because it owns AIM, bought ICQ and has its own AOL service. So blocking other clients can be viewed as a pretty anti-competitive move. If AOL really cared about bandwidth or extra users, it would license the AIM server like it does with AOL server. Hell AOL already lets people use TOC - TOC has always been their open (and limited) protocol, but OSCAR is the one with features and inherently more security because of that. Their only public defense is user secuirty, and have never said "It's our service, we run it like we want." Because if they did, the FCC would clamp down faster than you could say "you've got mail." AOL is majorly concerned with the FCC and even times releases on certain dates (delaying new versions months sometimes) to avoid any questions being asked.

So it's childish to misspell words? Gee, I didn't know that. :-P

That's funny, last time I checked companies made money off of my choice in operating systems. Linux is more capitalistic than Windows. Windows is Monopolistic, it falls into a whole new set of rules. I'd suggest that you head over to Barnes and Noble and pick yourself up a copy of "Open Sources". If you have no interest in the book as a whole, skip to page 117 and start reading. ;-)

If AOL would license AOL's server to Trillian then all of these problems would be solved. However, AOL has not done that so Trillian needs to head AOL's warning. ;-)

Wow fewt, I really do have to question your intelligence.

Who is stealing here?

Trillian is not taking anything (including bandwidth) from AOL at all. All they are doing is releasing a software application.

The users of Trillian are not stealing anything from AOL because, as AOL Instant Messenger subscribers, they already have permission to utilize those servers and are actually using LESS bandwidth with Trillian than they were with AOL.

So, all rhetoric and spellign issues aside.....who exactly is sommiting theft and in what manner?

No. Actually they don't "need to heed AOL's warning"

Trillian is doing nothing wrong. Cerulan does not have any connection to AOL's servers.

AOL is saying that the USERS of Trillian are doing something wrong. If that is the case they want to make, then they need to revise their usage agreement.

The AIM user agreement (which I have a copy of right in front of me) allows me to use their IM servers, and currently does NOT specify that I have to use the AOL IM client. (If it did, then AOL would have to cut off their ICQ users as well)

I am questioning Trillians business ethics, I am also questioning the ethics of anyone that would use AOL's servers via any method that AOL has formally requested that they not use. Being an AIM member does not grant you the right to open a socket to login.oscar.aol.com on port 5190 and send data to it.

Read the last line here: http://aim.aol.com/aimne...ister2.adp?promo=208931

Then follow the link at the end of the sentence.

READ IT.

Trillian is hacking AOL's AIM servers so they can send data to and from AOL's AIM customers. They are doing so against AOL's request that they do not. This makes them criminals.

AOL has NOT formally requested that their users not use Trillian.

Follow that link yourself. As of today there is STILL no language that prohibits using third party software to connect to AOL IM servers.

I'm still using their -service-, just not their client... by using AIM on Trillian, I still tell people, "My AIM SN is [so-and-so].." They're gaining popularity one way or another...

"It has long been our very public policy that when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it," AOL spokeswoman Kathy McKiernan said.

McKiernan said that Trillian does not have a business relationship with AOL. "To the extent that consumers think they do, they were misled," McKiernan said.

That's close enough to "NO" for me.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-826707.html

Here is the FULL text of the "Rules of User Conduct". Please note that there is NOTHING in here that prohibits using Trillian or any other third party software to conenct to AOL servers (including AIM servers) uless it can be shown to be "damaging" under one of the subsections. (incidentally, this is how AOL is trying to argue this case...they are claiming that Trillian is "damaging the security of the servers")

There are also the "Terms and Conditions of Use". And while they do contain this section "We reserve the right, at our discretion, to update or revise these Terms of Use. Please check the Terms periodically for changes. Your continued use of this site following the posting of any changes to the Terms of Use constitutes acceptance of those changes." which allows AOL to change them at any time...they still today DO NOT contain anything prohibiting the use of Trillian to conenct to AOL AIM servers. (I didn't quote that entire one because it is VERY long and is mostly legal disclaimers giving AOl the right to use YOUR information for any purpose they choose to)

------------
RULES OF USER CONDUCT
By posting information in or otherwise using any communications service, chat room, message board, newsgroup, software library, or other interactive service, including but not limited to AOL Instant Messenger, that may be available to you on or through this site, you agree that you will not upload, post, or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any content -- including text, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information -- that:

is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another's privacy, tortious, contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), uses vulgar language in the creation of a Screen Name (AIM) or otherwise violates America Online's rules or policies or these Rules of User Conduct;
victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability;
infringes on any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity, or other proprietary right of any party;
constitutes unauthorized or unsolicited advertising, junk or bulk e-mail (also known as "Spamming"), chain letters, any other form of unauthorized solicitation, or any form of lottery or gambling;
contains software viruses or any other computer code, files, or programs that are designed or intended to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software, hardware, or telecommunications equipment or to damage or obtain unauthorized access to any data or other information of any third party; or
impersonates any person or entity, including any employee or representative of America Online.
You also agree that you will not harvest or collect information about the users or members of this site or use such information for the purpose of transmitting or facilitating transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic e-mail or communications.

You further agree that you will not knowingly solicit or collect personal information from a minor (anyone under 18 yrs old). Personal information includes but is not limited to name, address, phone number or name of their school.

America Online generally does not pre-screen, monitor, or edit the content posted by users of communications services, chat rooms, message boards, newsgroups, software libraries, or other interactive services that may be available on or through this site. However, America Online and its agents have the right at their sole discretion to remove any content that, in America Online's judgment, does not comply with the Rules of User Conduct or is otherwise harmful, objectionable, or inaccurate. America Online is not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such content.

A public quote in a news article is not in any way, shape, or form "formal notification".

Until they change their user agreement they have NO grounds for any legal action of any kind.

They aren't going to change the user agreement BTW, because putting this specific prohibition in there would then violate the terms of the merger agreement.

fewt says "Trillian is hacking AOL's AIM servers so they can send data to and from AOL's AIM customers. They are doing so against AOL's request that they do not. This makes them criminals. "

Bull. Trillian (I assume you mean the company Cerulan) is not "hacking" AOL's servers at all. They are writing software that sends perfectly acceptable AIM protocol commands (a protocol that is NOT copyrighted) on behalf of authorized users of the AIM service.

Now, read the section titled "TERMINATION"

Unless you work for Cerulean Studios, you can't honestly say that can you? Who's to say they weren't served with a cease and decist order?

Oh, well tell me how they do that without reverse engineering the protocol against AOL's servers then.

Yes. I've said that AOL is within their rights to terminate users for ANY reason they see fit.

I'm disputing your argument that Cerulan or Trillian users are doing anything illegal, immoral, or in violation of any agreement.

AOL has no grounds for a "cease and desist" order against Cerulan at all. Cerulan is NOT making a connection to AOL's servers.

The users of the Trillian software are. AOL has not served THEM with any "formal notification" at all.

That's simple.

I'm autorized to install and run the IAM client on my network and connect to AIM servers.

I'm also authorized to sniff any and all network traffic that originates in or terminates in my network.

Figuring out the (non copyrighted) AIM protocol is trivial and does not require EVER connecting to an AIM server with anything other than the AIM client.

AOL doesn't want Trillian to connect to their servers, that should be enough. It's pretty much all they have to say. It becomes a legal issue if they don't heed the "no trespassing" sign, even if it's made by a spokesperson in a news article.

Oh, so they pulled the AIM protocol compatability layer out of thin air?

" Figuring out the (non copyrighted) AIM protocol is trivial and does not require EVER connecting to an AIM server with anything other than the AIM client. "

So you are now saying that Cerulean Studios does not test their products before they release them to the market? Lets all rush out and install their software then.

Wow, how many time do I have to explain this. MANY people have reverse engineered the AIm protocol without ever connecting to an AIm server with anything other then AIM.

All it requires is runnin AIM on my network and sniffing packets ON MY NETWORK (which is 100% perfectly legal, and is also not even a violation of my usage agreement with AOL)

"AOL doesn't want Trillian to connect to their servers, that should be enough. It's pretty much all they have to say. It becomes a legal issue if they don't heed the "no trespassing" sign, even if it's made by a spokesperson in a news article. "

WRONG. 100% wrong.

I am legally bound by my usage agreement with AOL.

I am not legally bound in any way to read the news, and even if I did, a quote in a news article does NOT change my usage agreement with AOL.

So, no, it does not become a legal issue.

That's exactly what I am saying.

Cerulan (the company) did not initiate connections to AIM servers to test connectivity.

Authorized AIM users (like me) did.

buuuuuut how do they test it before they release it to the consumer? LOL

Easy. They have Authorized AIM users test it for them (no violation of agreement)

And Napster doesn't initiate file transfers, and guns don't kill people...

Not a very good argument :)

A perfectly good, legal, constitutional, and logical argument.

You may not agree with it. But the courts do.

Napster was help liable (in court) because they kept a central database of file names and location on THEIR server. Had the software been pure "peer to peer" with no central server, the court would not have been able to go after Napster directly, but instead would have had to go after Napster users one at a time.

As for guns, I'll stick to simple facts and statistics. The four cities with the lowest incidence of gun related crime in the entire US are the four cities in the US that REQUIRE all citizens to own a gun.

Gun related crime in the UK is on the rise, despite the fact that guns are illegal there (even for police).

Gun related crime in Switzerland is almost unheard of. Swiss citizens are required to own guns.

So you are a lawyer now too huh. LOL You kill me. Trillian is just getting the guy next door to do the dirty work, it's not a perfectly legal thing to do. At best it's a grey area. Regardless If AOL does not want any non AOL software to connect to AOL servers, it's their right. You speak of constitutional value, yet you have none.

ah but that would be asking the wrong people to stop wouldnt it? I mean... Cerulean arent the ones "stealing bandwidth" (the reason u claim aol dont want people using it).

oh and the whole security thing... rubish, trillian is MORE secure if anything.

"They are doing so against AOL's request that they do not. This makes them criminals."

ah so u know that AOL HAVE contacted them directly (by lawers?) and given them the typical american cease + disist demand? how do u know this fewt? ah so u DO work for AOL on the side?

until AOL directly demand that trillian loses its AIM support I dont see why trillian users shouldnt be allowed to connect to aim.

If AOL is so worried all they have to do is get their lawers to send a nice little letter to the developers of trillian. why havent they? oh because that would put aol in serious trouble over breaking the merger agreements? ahh...

and your napster argument is even worse! if we are going to compare this to the whole mp3 sharing thing, then trillian would best be compaired to WinMX - which I dont believe the RIAA has gone after so far, neither did napster when it was using their servers.

so why dont aol get the lawers involed (which we know they love doing!)? if AOL has a case then they should get the courts to deal with it instead of these childish acts of bloking a few users using few clients here and there.

What makes you say that it's more secure? Have you done a code audit for unchecked buffers? Have you audited their protocol to verify that it is 100% in line with AOL's protocol design?

That's a good question. I'm sure that they will toy with them over it for a while, then hit them with a lawsuit for circumventing their access controls.

its a shame that the usual flaw in american law will again let aol win though - the one with the most money wins. im sure the trillian developers can hardly afford to produce the product for free, there is no way they can defend themselves against bully boys like AOL.

i think it would be very public knowledge if they had.. aol would have mentioned it im sure.

I am an authorized AIM user, just like very user of Trillian that connects to AOL's servers.

Until AOL changes the usage agreement to disallow my (or any other users) connecting with third party software, there is no problem.

AOL can complain to the press all they want, but until they change the usage agreement, no one (Cerulan or the Trillian users) are doing anything wrong.

fewt says "Trillian is just getting the guy next door to do the dirty work, it's not a perfectly legal thing to do. At best it's a grey area."

Really? Cite ONE law that's being broken.

fewt say "Regardless If AOL does not want any non AOL software to connect to AOL servers, it's their right."

And all they have to do is change their usage agreement to say so. But they haven't. Until they do, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with authorized AIM uses connecting with ANY software that they want to.

fewt say "You speak of constitutional value, yet you have none."

Really? I seem to be the one upholding the values of the US Constituion, not you. You are the one who claims that a statement in the press by an AOL spokesperson should override the legally binind agreement between AOL and its users. I'm the one saying that the users are not in violation of the agreement until AOL chnages it to say so. You're the one saying that AOL's request that Cerualn stop writing a piece of software shoudl be legally enforcable. I'm the one saying that AOL needs to follow the laws of this country and use legal channels if they feel that Cerulan is doing something wrong.

Ok guy, only a complete fool would ignore the sort of hint AOL is trying to give you.

He said "...if anything".

It isn't Cerulan's responsibility to prove it is secure. Under the terms of AOL's current usage guildelines and agreements, it's AOL's responsibility to show that it isn't secure.

AOL is not trying to give me a "hint". If they were, they would have changed their usage agreement or contacted me directly (they have my registration information after all)

What article grants you the right to use something that does not belong to you?

You don’t have to do the “crime” to be an accessory to it. That’s where Trillian is guilty.

For there to be an "accessory" a crime has to hhave been commited by someone.

Cerulan has not commited a crime (as I said above) but you seem to be alleging that the users of Trillian have.

Not only have the uses not done anything criminal, under the current terms of the AOL usage agreement, they aren't even in violation of Acceptable Use.

If by "you" you are referring to the users of Trillian, then we are granted the right to use "what doesn't belong to us" (The AIM servers) by the Usage Agreement we have with AOL.

AOL specifically granted us the right to connect to and send/recive messages via their servers.

That usage agreement does not prohibit the use of non-AOL software for connection.

Come on guy, answer my question, don't twist it like a child. What article of the constitution gives you this right.

LOL oh that has to be your most pathetic comment ever! so no one is allowed to ever use the AIM servers now? not even with the AIM client huh?

It's pretty arrogent to think it's ok to enter AOL's house carrying a bottle of wine when AOL wants you to bring a sixer. Maybe you should send an email to AOL asking if it's ok to connect with the Trillian client.

Or, maybe when I sign up for a screen name, AOL should inform me that in order tom enter their house, I must use the AIM application as the key, and that is the only key they want to unlock he door.

However, AOL has not stated that I cannot trade my AIM key in for a Trillian key, so, I am using both the AIM key adn the Trillian key.

Until AOL emails us, they know our email addresses, *or* changes the policy and informs the users, we have the right to use any key that will unlock the door and let us in.

When's the last time you saw a gun get up on it's own and kill someone? Guns don't kill people, it's fairly simple. And yes you can argue that their primary purpose is to kill, but how a gun is used depends on the person holding it.

That's like saying lock-picks break into people's houses, etc.

I have yet to understand how you have the right to connect any way that you want. All I see here is pure assumption. You know what it means to assume don't you?

I don't have to ask them.

Unless they say in the User Agreement that it is not allowed they have no grounds to say otherwise.

Yes. I do.

I also know the law governing "Acceptable Use", "End User License Agreements", and "Rules of User Conduct".

Unless one of those prohibits the action, it is allowed (by law)

Now AOL can change those at any time and without notice, but in this case they have chosen not to. Therefore it is still perfectly legal and acceptable to use non-AOL software.

Your question is irrelevant since as I showed, my usage of AOL's servers (use what doesn't belong to me) is approved IN ADVANCE by by AOL.

The answer to your question is that nothing in the Constitution grants the "right to use something that does not belong to you" except for the freedom articles which do allow AOL to give me permission to use their servers (which IS the case here)

So, since I'm an authorised AIM user I can create a socket to AOL's AIM server farm, and send as many packets to it as fast as I can? I love your logic.

So, since I know you I can pick up a set of lock picks, and let myself into your house, unless you post a sign forbidding me to enter? Is that how you define "fair use"? Can I get into the fridge while I'm there? I suppose I can, now can't I.

But, you said ..

"Really? I seem to be the one upholding the values of the US Constituion, not you."

So, tell me then, how are you upholding them? How am I not? I'm sorry, I thought this was America. You do not have the right to assume that you have any rights you were not expressly given. I once stated that you implied you were a lawyer, but there's just no way. lol

No, that one is covered under the Usage Agreement as "destructive action".

Connecting with Trillian has not been shown to be a "destructive action" since it sends the same packets that the AIM client does and follows the same rules.

Nice attempt to twist it, but you still lose.

Not sure how this is supposed to apply.

You refer to "lock picks" which would be an improper means of authentication (unlocking). In the case of Trillian the IAm username and password are used, so the analogy would be "the key to the house you were given" not "lock picks"

You say "Let myself into your house" which is incorrect since that implies entry woithout permission. In the case of Trillian the user has been given permission in advance.

So yes, I would define it as "fair use" for you to use a key that I gave you to enter my house after I gave you permission to do so.

I am upholding them by supporting the right of two consenting individuals to enter into a contract. (Freedom of Commerce)

You are the one who wants to impose limits on that agreement without modifying the agreement itself. (Freedom of Commerce)

You are the one who refers to acts as "criminal" when no laws have been broken (Right of Due Process)

BTW, I notice that you dropped the thread where you made accusations of "Trespass" and "Hacking" when both of those were disproven and you could not provide evidence for either.

Almost forgot to add:

Consult a lawyer or an expert on Constitutional Law. In the US you do have the right to any action not specifically disallowed by law elsewhere. The US Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation repeatedly. (i.e. you have the right to breathe or to stand on one foot UNLESS these have been prohibited through due legisative and legal process)

But.. you just said.. I thought.. but.. but.. we have an AGREEMENT!

LOL

Well, I just assumed it was ok. I mean, it's ok for you to make assumptions based on your own opinion right?

They were not disproven, I just chose not to continue down that path because this one is more fun.

Did you say anything in this post relevant to the thread?

You can LOL all you want, but either respond to mu post coherently, or acknowledge that you are wrong.

You accused me of using the logic that I can connect to a socket on an AIM server and send packets as fast as I want.....I refuted that claim.

Do you have anything constructive to add? or are you just covering your retreat?

Again, how does this address my post at all?

You "tried" to make an analogy, I showed that in almost every point, your analogy was incorrect.

Was your response designed to show that you made "assumptions" and don't know the facts?

It sounds like you might be "trying" to accuse me of making assumptions based on my own opinions, but that can't be right since I keep backing up my posts with facts and case law.

I fail to see how you aren't changing the subject from your statement that "I have yet to understand how you have the right to connect any way that you want. All I see here is pure assumption. You know what it means to assume don't you? " when the case in question is not "connecting any way we want to" but is "Connecting using non-AOL software that interacts with AIm servers using the same AIM commands and protocol as the AIm software itself"

As for how that is OK, I have cited the case law that included AOL's classification of their "User Agreement" and an "Exclusive Agreement". You can go get a law book and look up "Exclusive Agreement" if you want to. Under that definition the AOL Agreements (which I have also quoted), do not prohibit, and therefore, by definition, allow that third party software connection.

OK, then continue down this one. Respond to these "Constitutional" issues.

Actually, now that I think about it more, this is the Internet, so, the United States Constitution would not apply. How can you claim freedom on the Internet when the Internet reaches out past the United States borders.

The US Constitution would do no good in France, Japan, Indonesia, Chile, or anywhere else there is Internet Access, thus, the US Constitution doesn't apply.

You haven't refuted crap. Maybe in your mind, but again my ESP is broken.

You've shown case law? I don't see case law, I see opinion. Feel free to append any useful laws that I should be aware of to the end of your posts.

Oh? Freedom of Speech has already been upheld on the Internet. The Constitution most certainly does apply. As do any laws in any other country that has an internet presence.

You really didn't read that EULA very well, did you.

Again, insults with no content or evidence.

I have repeatedly.

"State of Washington v America Online et al - 1998"

Tell ya what, when you can provide real evidence instead of just providing a quote and expecting me to take it as fact, then maybe we can talk. I plugged that into google, look what I got.

http://www.google.com/se...n&start=10&sa=N

Mix and match it a bit, maybe you can get more out of it than I did. Lemme give you one, "State of New York v America Online et al - 1990". There it is, as much data as you gave me. Is it fact or fiction, you tell me. Until you provide even a shred of solid fact to back your claim, instead of talking out your a** expecting us to "just know" what you are telling us, don't bother.

You can deny the fact all you want. Not being able to access it online doen't make it any less of a fact (guess what fewt, there is a world outside of your computer)

You can go to a local university and look it up in the Law Library if you want to.

Or, you can skip that case law and do what I told tyou to do. Call AOL and ask them if the agreement is an Exclusive Agreement or an Inclusive Agreement. I already did, thjey are wuite happy to confirm that it is an "Exclusive Agreement"

What part of "my conversation with you is over" do you not understand? Hell, I already told you I called them too. I hope you got a name.

fewt says "What part of "my conversation with you is over" do you not understand?"

I understand it perfectly. Since you don't control wheter or not I can post, it's irrelevant to me. Oddly enough, you seem to keep posting.

fewt says "Hell, I already told you I called them too. I hope you got a name."

Yes, you scalled them. But you were foolish enough to call "tech support" who aren't going to have a clue what you are talking about. Use some common sense and call someone at AOL who will know. Hint: AOL Corporate Headquarters is listed in the telephone directory. Go call them.

Good catch Fred!

By fewt's own argument, he is not allowed to connect to any AIM server with any software (including AOL's) becuas eno where in any of the agreements does it speficially say "You are granted the right to connect to AIM servers using the AIM software"

Shame I didn't catch that one.

I think fewt just argued himself into a corner without help this time.

links guy, links. If you want to make a case, you'll need to work harder. You've been a fun game for the last few days, but I have no more desire to play with you further. Provide proof kid. I'm not going to go do your homework for you.

Please, if you can read this much into my post, why not try showing that effort towards that license agreement.

I pu a lot of effort into reading the agreement. And I'll stand on the fact that even AOL agrees with me on this one.

Though I would be interested in how you respond to Fred's post. He really does show the hypocrisy in your own argument.

Guess we'll never see you answer though. You seem to have degenerated into personal attacks as a substitute for trying to defend your incresingly impossible position.

Would you get the hint if they drove it through your front door? I've been giving you hints for roughly 200 messages now, and you still just don't get it. You dense or just arrogent?

The words in the EULA weren't that tough.

I'd feel sorry for the folks working on the Trillian project, but it appears they aren't playing by the rules.

You are probably right, however I'm not in the know enough to make a statement either way, I can only say "what if". ;-)

Ah, but you said the hint that AOL is giving me.
(not that you were giving me)

You said "Ok guy, only a complete fool would ignore the sort of hint AOL is trying to give you."

I'm waiting to see how AOL is trying to give me a hint at all.

They have not contacted their subscribers to tell them not to use Trillian.
They have not changed the Usage Agreement to prohibit the use of Trillian.

They did have a spokesperson make unfounded accusations in a statement to a reported (which has no legal bearing whatsoever on the Agreement between AOL and it's users)

So, please enlighten me.....

You say that AOL is trying to give me a hint. When, Where, and How?

We'll disregard your response about YOU giving me a hint, since if you read the thread (and your previous post) that isn't what we were discussing.

I'll reply to my own post here as a pointer to fewt's response at 10:15PM ET on Feb 11th which is hoing to get canceled because he STILL doesn't grasp the concept of "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

I would think that someone who claims to be mature, literate, and claims to respect the requests of the people who own the server he is using...would have figured out quicker how foolish and disrespectful it is to keep induling in profanity and personal attacks.

Really?

Seems surprising to hear you say that, since according to your interpretation of the EULA, no user is allowed to connect to any AIM server with any software at all(including AIM itself)

Since that is obviously not true, I would have thought that you would have admitted to having misread it by now.

Really? Name even ONE rule that they aren't playing by (that you haven't made up yourself)

You had a troubled childhood didn't you.

I said that? WOW, I don't remember saying that. What else can you pull out of your ass?

You said yourself that they don't test the AIM connectivity themselves, tell me why.

B**w me. :-) There you go, no foul language. I'll just "imply" it.

No, quite a happy one. (boy that was longer ago for some of us that it is for you)

As a result, I can carry on a sustained debate/discussion.

You, on the other hand, are refusing to support your own claims and keep resorting to personal attacks and insults are a replacement for logic and thought.

So, as I said "You say that AOL is trying to give me a hint. When, Where, and How?"

Good. The first sign of you starting to mature is your willingness to change your behavior to conform to the rules set forth by the people who's server you are using (it's their forum, not a protected public one)

I asked what rule they aren't playing by.

Where (other than your imagination) is there a rule that says that they can't ask private citizens and autorized AIM users to test it for them (hey, some of those might even be Cerulan emplyees)

I'm not refusing, I just have no desire to. I'd rather sit here and attack you all day dumb A*s.

Feb 10th 11:59 PM
fewt says "Unless it is written into the contract, you have absolutely no claim to it."

So yes, you DID say that.

Why don't you do the same huh? LOL Until then F..K off. :-)

I'm sorry but since you have to agree to their terms to get the client, it implies that you are allowed to use their client. It however does not imply that you are allowed to use any other client. This is my opinion, arguing with me will not change that.

I guess, that like Alice, you believe seven impossible things before breakfast.

I'm not trying to change you opinion, just wondering if you were going to explain how the opinios you have shared contradict each other.

But, I guess you won't....you'll just keep on contradicting yourself and hoping that no one notices.

It's not criminal in the same sense as murder, but they are still violating AOL.com's terms of use:

"Except as expressly authorized by America Online, you agree not to sell, license, rent, modify, distribute, copy, reproduce, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, publish, adapt, edit, or create derivative works from such materials or content."

Trillian's work derives from AIM's work/protocols which are found on an AOL web site. Also, Trillian's program is an adaption of AIM, aka they broke AOL's terms of service which means they broke the law.

But I do agree that AOL should have more specific language in it's terms of service and should specifically state something in regards to AIM. Also, note that I realize the terms of service of for AOL.com and not AIM, but the TOS still apply to AIM since AIM is found on an AOL website.

I think you will find that Trillian does not meet the legal definition of a "deriviative work"

You're getting the wrong idea. It's not about what I bring into the house, I'm bringing the same "drink" (or data) as if I was using AIM.

What AOL is trying to say is that you have to use THEIR car to get to their house.

I'm not going to argue this to the death like your earlier argument(s) w/ fewt, but you're wrong. Trillion is not entirely derived from AIM, but it is partially derived from AIM. If AIM never existed, neither would parts of Trillion. Trillion is partially "a sequence of statements... showing that a result is a necessary consequence of previously accepted statements" (ask Mirriam-Webster about that one). In other words, Trillion is has components that are there only because of AIM. It is a derivative of AIM.

Note that I did not say "dictionary definition". I said "legal definition".

In order to be considered a "derivative work" for the purposes of licensing/copyright/etc. there are strict guidelines that must be met. (you can look them up)

Trillian has not been (and very likely NEVER will be) shown to be a "derivative work" as it does not meet almost any of the criteria required by law.

Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (is that good enough?) states that a derivative is: arising out of or dependent on the existence of something else. Now, I believe that Trillion is not only dependant on the existance of AIM and AOL, but that it also arose from the existance of AIM and AOL. Now explain to me how it's not a derivative, I just explained to you how it is.

If you disagree w/ me again, don't just say you disagree, prove why you disagree. You're argument isn't good when you just say, "that's not right."

Download the latest AIM patch (02-08-2002-b, 1209)
http://www.ceruleanstudi...illian-v0.724-aim-b.exe
good luck replying

I am an AIM user, have been for what 6 years.

Since i know of Trillian, I choose to use them as AIM carrier to get on, simply due to the fact that there are no goddamm ads.

If I did not have that choiuce, i would use AIM however a lot of friends have al;ready migrated to MSN anyways.

All i am saying is either way it would cost them bandwith !

"I don't see what there is to investigate. Trillian is using AOL's servers without their permission. AOL does not want them to use AOL's servers. Trillian is giving AOL the finger. AOL should file charges of bandwidth theft, and unlawful use of their systems against Trillian IMHO"

Amen brother, amen. :)

Bandwidth theft?

How so? Trillian's users are using AOL's bandwidth with a different client when they could in fact be using AOL's client instead, I don't see how you can say theft of bandwidth.

Also, if you hate the AIM ads, they're fairly simple to remove, it's a small process.

1. Sign off AIM and close down the program.
2. Open notepad, or your favorite text editor.
3. Browse to the program files/aim95 directory
4. Delete the file "advert.ocm"
4. Open the file, aim.odl
5. Scroll down, and look for...

on_group(5)

load_ocm advert required

on_group(11)

load_ocm advert required

Edit it to look like

on_group(5)

on_group(11)

6. Save the file, restart AIM and enjoy no banner ads and no lost bandwidth.

Ah, but as mentioned earlier... we do have permission to access AOL's IM servers...

When we signed up for an accout with AOL, we were given a login and password for access to their servers. How we use that login and password was never mandated as "must be thru AIM client only" (they may have changed that by now) and there for we are not "hacking in", "breaking in" or "stealing bandwitdth". How do I say this?

2 simple reasons:

1) We are allowed to access their servers via our username and password. Plain and simple as that. If we choose to use Trillian to do that, so be it. To put it another way, if you are connecting to an FTP Server, you can use Cute, Guild or whatever you want. You will still use the same username and password.

2) We are not stealing bandwidth. The bandwidth is no different if we use Trillian or the AIM client. By signing on with Trillian we are doing so INSTEAD of signing on with the AIM client. So you see, we would be using the same bandwidth no matter what client we use.

You may have permission to use their servers, but if Trillian isn't allowed to connect then it doesn't matter. If I went to your house and drove my car into your livingroom though I could have just used your driveway, would that be ok?

That is idiotic at best.

Which is absolutely what you people are saying is ok for Trillian to do.

That may be so, but AOL owns your screen name and every other one out there. They can tell you to do what they want, when they want, if they want.

fewt says "You may have permission to use their servers, but if Trillian isn't allowed to connect then it doesn't matter."

This would be correct if Trillian wasn't allowed to connect.

Under the current User Agreement and Usage Guidelines between AOL and its AIM customers, there is NO prohibition against using non-AOL software of any kind to connect to AOL or AIM servers.

A "spokesperson" for AOL said in a news article that Trillian is not allowed to connect, but until they change the Usage Agreement that statement is NOT correct.

And as soon as AOL tells their AIM customers to NOT use Trillian I will agree with you 100%.

The problem is that as of today AOL has NOT changed their Usage Agreement (which they reserve the right to change at anytime and without notice) to prohibit the use of Trillian or any other non-AOL software.

AOL could solve this problem very quickly by just making it "official" that use of Trillian to connect to AIM servers is not allowed. For some reason they have chosen to NOT do this.

That may be so, but aol.com's term's of use state

"Except as expressly authorized by America Online, you agree not to sell, license, rent, modify, distribute, copy, reproduce, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, publish, adapt, edit, or create derivative works from such materials or content."

Trillian is a derivative of AIM's service or put similarly, it derived from AIM, which duh, is found on AOL.com/aim.com.

However, I still do agree that AOL should put more distinct language in its terms of use and in AIM's terms of use.

Look up the legal definition of "deriviative work" and the requirements for proving such.

Trillian is NOT a "derivative work"

Well, lets see, Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (is that good enough?) states that a derivative is: arising out of or dependent on the existence of something else. Now, I believe that Trillion is not only dependant on the existance of AIM and AOL, but that it also arose from the existance of AIM and AOL. Now explain to me how it's not a derivative, I just explained to you how it is.

Now go look up the standards that must be met in order for a work to be "legally" declared a "derivative work" of another.

So the answer would be No. The "Mirriam-Webster Dictionary of Law" is not good enough. Go look at the sections of the copyright statutes that spell out the requirements for proof of "work of a derivative nature"

You tell me what the standards are, I got the definition, now I want to go on more than your word.

Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (is that good enough?) states that a derivative is: arising out of or dependent on the existence of something else. Now, I believe that Trillion is not only dependant on the existance of AIM and AOL, but that it also arose from the existance of AIM and AOL. Now explain to me how it's not a derivative, I just explained to you how it is.

If you disagree w/ me again, don't just say you disagree, prove why you disagree. You're argument isn't good when you just say, "that's not right."

No-one has mentioned that AOL actually own ICQ also.

They ain't blocking that which has more bloody ads and things than AIM.

All in all I suppose this is anti-competivness of a free product.

By using the word "donate" no-one can claim Trillian is making money from the app as people simply give to them instead of registring through a need.

That's because AIM is much larger than ICQ in most countries. And because ICQ allows user-to-user connections for messages, it would be much harder to block outsiders I'd imagine.

most countries? seems to me aim is only popular in america.

How many countries are on the net? How many of those have you been to? What evidence can you provide to back that up?

do i need to go to another country to see in general that you find an american on a message board/chat room etc they generally say "here is my aim screen name" but more often than not people from other countries say "my icq number is" or "my hotmail address is" (meaning msn messenger obviously)?

While I hate to agree with fewt....I'm afraid you are wrong on this one. AIM is extremely popular overseas, particularly in Pacific Rim countries.

It's actually so popular thet we were forced (by customer demand) to start accepting AIM as a valid method of business contact from our customers in several countries.

That's half the reason you people argue with me, even if I'm right you'd have a hard time finding mature thought. If you were correct you'd find that I wouldn't take a cheap shot at you about it in my reply.

fewt says "That's half the reason you people argue with me, even if I'm right you'd have a hard time finding mature thought."

I agree completely. Even if you were right (might happen someday) I would still have trouble finding mature thought anywhere in your argument.

fewt says "If you were correct you'd find that I wouldn't take a cheap shot at you about it in my reply. "

True. Every time I have backed you into a corner and completely destroyed your position, you choose silence over acknowledging that I am right.

Oh, that's funny. I don't recall being backed into a corner. I've been taken by the fact that you assume you can do anything you want to AOL's servers because you have clicked "I Agree". I have yet to see any fact in any of your comments. Your messages are based strictly on opinion, which you are entitled to. If you want to back me into a corner, you'll have to do better than that. There are many threads where I've given up talking to the wall, that doesn't make you right.

> Oh, that's funny. I don't recall
> being backed into a corner.

Go back and read several of the threads regarding EULA, Trespass, and "Public Notice"

> I've been taken by the fact that you
> assume you can do anything you want to
> AOL's servers because you have clicked
> "I Agree".

An interesting accusation. Show me where I ever said "can do anything I want". AOL has put MANY restrictyions into the Agreement govening what I can and can't do. Hoever, they have NOT put in any restriction as to what client software I can connect with.

> I have yet to see any fact in any
> of your comments.

Interesting, since I have quoted US case law, Supreme Court Opinions and the Usage Agreement itself.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence whatsoever. You have made accusations of "criminal acts", "Trespass", and "Hacking" without any evidence whatsoever to back up those claims.

> Your messages are based strictly on
> opinion, which you are entitled to.

See the threads on "Rights", "EULA", and "Published Notice" where my arguments are backed by law, not by opinion.

> If you want to back me into a corner,
> you'll have to do better than that.
> There are many threads where I've given
> up talking to the wall, that doesn't
> make you right.

No, the facts make me right.

In the cases where you have provided "facts" they have been inapplicable ones. For example, your allegation that (paraphrase) "MS will (in the future) borg standards into proprietary MS" that you tried to support by citing the entire text of the DOJ v. Microsoft case. Nothing in that case proves what Microsoft's futur actions will be, but that didn't stop you from giving the link as "proof" of your point.

Stop and think, folks. What motivates any successful company like AOL? Money, of course. The AIM client displays ads, and ads make AOL money. Also, Trillian uses time on AOL's servers, and all those electrons cost money. AOL's PR department claims it's a security breach only so they don't sound like a "big evil money-grubbing juggernaut" to the general public. The accountants run the company, kids.

AIM is free, so why should aol have a big problem with trillian? If it is eating up space on aim why would it matter, the people are just going to use that space on aim. i think people who are trillian users should have the right to use it with aim, especaly if they have aol also.

AOL minds because AOL has to pay for it!!

Maybe trillian should license time on AOL's servers, after all the servers DO belong to AOL. All AOL is doing is protecting their property. Change AOL to Microsoft in this news story, and the comments would change dramatically. I don't get it, AIM belong to AOL, if Trillian wants to use them, I'm sure they can work out a deal with AOL to rent them for their use too.

Well, I wonder if this "protecting their software" would be considered in violation of the Merger agreement? Also, why would AOL allow some, but not others to connect?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

The merger agreement required them to open the protocol, not allow them to use their servers. ;-)

And we only have AOL's word Trillian is "hacking" their servers. It would be nice to have an independant entity investigate, and report on how it is really being done.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I don't see what there is to investigate. Trillian is using AOL's servers without their permission. AOL does not want them to use AOL's servers. Trillian is giving AOL the finger. AOL should file charges of bandwidth theft, and unlawful use of their systems against Trillian IMHO.

and have they shown ANY significant signs of opening their protocol? nope. incidentally i believe the actual merger agreement was for AOL to work towards a totally open messaging platform - I personally see that as a system simular to email where any server software can talk to any server software, where the client can be any client software and where the client can use a range of protocols (like email uses smtp/pop3/imap4 etc) - so this would obviously include aol allowing people to connect to their servers using whatever client software.

microsoft is ACTIVELY working towards an open platform (you'll find several RFCs on the microsoft protocol) AND microsoft is taking big steps forward with its client/protocol etc yet you still agree more with AOL than microsoft! u never fail to make me laugh fewt!

AOL IS A FRIKIN MONOPOLY! if american law doesnt see that then there is something VERY wrong with american law (or the government in general (read as money changes hands too often)).

Couldn't have said it better myself. Worst thing to ever happen to this country was the allowed merger of AOL and Time Warner.

Too damn powerful if you ask me, much more so than MircoSoft.

I think they are equally bad.

as I stated as a reply to one of your earlier moronic comments, we are connecting with AOL's permission... they gamve us the right to connect to their server when we signed up for a username and password.

When someone is offering a free serivce you have no "rights" other than those afforded to you by the written law. And the law does not guarantee you access to AOL's free service simply because you obtained a login and password. AOL, however, has the right to remove your access and cut you off at any time. They can also record your conversations, IP address, and anything else they wanted.

Atleast if an MS producy is still under it's warantee, they send out a replacement free of charge, and they don't ever ask for the defective/broken unit back. They send it out Federal Express, usually via next day service.

Did I mention, it's 100% totally free to you?

How many other companies can you say that about?

Microsoft has a bad rep, something they may deserve, however, I don't believe half the stuff you hear is actually a fair assessmnet of the company as a whole.

Actually, Nate, it is against the law to record conversations without letting the person know you're doing it. It violates the Constitution of the United States. It's also called, "Entrapment".

fewt, before you look even more foolish, go do a search and read the terms of the agreement. The statement you just made is cometely incorrect.

oh?

here..

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-270345.html

Interoperability does not grant anyone the right to use their systems. I'm sure Trillian and AOL could work out a deal to allow Trillian to create interoperability between networks, but they haven't done that now have they?

They don't have to work out an agreement with AOL.

As long as the commands they send are valid AIM command and do not damage the network in any way, the burden of proof is on AOL to show that they are "hacking" AOL's servers.

And, unlike you, I am NOT willing to accept a quote by "an AOL spokesperson" to a reporter as "proof".

"They don't have to work out an agreement with AOL."

No, in your mind, it's OK to steal.

> oh?

Yes.

> here..
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-270345.html

Nothing in this article says anything to support your point at all. Why did you bother to post it?

> Interoperability does not grant anyone the right to use
> their systems.

The "anyone" using AOL's systems are authorized AIM users. Cerulan (the company that wrote Trillian) is not "using" AOL's systems, the users are. And those users ARE allowed to do so using third party software under the terms of the current (as of today) usage agreement.

> I'm sure Trillian and AOL could work out
> a deal to allow Trillian to create interoperability
> between networks, but they haven't done that now have
> they?

Cerulan (the makers of Trillian) do not need to as long as AOL has not prohibited authorized AIM users from using third party software to connect (see AIM usage agreement and rules of user conduct)

No, it isn't. But repeating the word "steal" over and over doesn't make it so.

Show me how Cerulan (the makers of Trillian) are "stealing" anything.

Show me how the users of Trillian (who are all authorized users of AIM) are "stealing" anything.

Ok, explain to me how Cerulean Studios implemented their AIM compatability without cracking AIM's servers.

I already have in another post.

Sniffing MY local network when I connect to an AIM server is perfectly legal and does not require touching AIM servers with anything other than the AIM client.

Right, they don't bother to test their software before they release it to the public. Well looking at it that way, now I fully understand how AOL can say that they are endangering it's security.

AOL says no, Cerulean Studios does it anyway. There we go, plain and simple.

Cerulan does what anyway?

All Cerulan did was write and release software. AOL can not tell them to do or not to do that and expect it to be followed any more than I can tell you to stop breathign and expect it to be followed.

AOL can tell Cerulan to not connect to it's servers. No one has said that Cerulan connected to an AOL server after they were asked not to.

Users of software written by Cerulan (Trillian) have connected to AOL servers, but under the terms of the user agreement bettwen them and AOL, they are allowed to.

Ok, I hope you don't prosecute anyone that breaks into your home, by your logic he isn't a thief.

Correct. If he and I have a legally binding agreement that giveis him a key to my house and specifically authourizes him to enter (like I have with AIM) then no, it would bot be breaking in.

Read the fine print. Just as your ISP can pass your e-mail through Carnivore, AOL can do the same with AIM and get a warrant to listen to your conversations without your permissions. Welcome to the 21st Century where your personal rights aren't as important as public safety, at least as long as people like Ashcroft are making decisions.

Why must you continue to twist my comments, though I've made it very clear? I don't care what your agreement with AOL is. It really does not matter. Trillian connects to AOL's servers, and they don't want it to. That should be easy enough for any law abiding citizen to understand.

how can you not remember what you posted earlier? you tried (and failed) to make this point several posts ago, and even then it was the second time it was brought up. i would go through the process of relating the legality of sniffing packets on my own network, but you would only say AGAIN "and you're saying that Cerulean Studios didn't test their product prior to release?".....

What's your point?

Fewt,

Is it AOL or Trillian he works for, I am confused now. You said he works for Trillian, now you're saying he has an agreement with AOL, previously you stated he was a lawyer.

Do you work for the CIA?

u think u really have rights?! ah americans so cute :)

they probably started out by making use of many of the documents on the net about the aim protocol. OR! maybe they made use of some of the source code from some of the linux clients?

lol you're like a little robot arent u. just going over and over the same points that people have already dismissed!

and thats stealing what exactly?! oh yeah i remember this part of the thread (its been said about 10 times already so i should remember it!) "bandwidth"... and the response is "but im using less bandwidth than i would be using if i used aols aim client". end of topic. can u come up with a new argument now please fewt... a valid one would be nice!

so AOL should ask the developers directly to not include aim support anymore. giving valid reasons why trillian shouldnt be allowed to connect and allowing the developers chance to dispute the argument.

except thats not going to happen is it, because it would be a pretty clear breach of the merger agreements.

I think this is another reason AOL is upset over Trillian. Trillian just recently started encrpyting Trillian-to-Trillian user messages on the AIM and ICQ protocols. Now if AOL were to become a big brother, they wouldn't be able to scan the so called "hackers" that use Trillian. I use Trillian, and I'm not a hacker. I just enjoy the higher-quality, interoperability, and customization I get from Trillian. In no way am I using Trillian to purposely attack AOL, and I think (remember that I say "think" if you respond to this) I speak for most Trillian users when I say I haven't had anything against any of these IM services until AOL starting blocking Trillian users.

So they have dismissed them, that's their problem for not opening their eyes, not mine.

The only reason AOL has to give them is "We don't want you to use our servers". That's it, plain and simple.

I agree with you, and it's absurd when AOL argues it compromises security when they don't even offer secure IM's.

I in fact, still run AIM, but, I also run Trillian with a different screen name. Trillian is the much better client, but, they don't allow the pasting of pictures like AIM does, and that's one of the features I use most, so that I don't have to save the image to my hard drive(s).. not that I don't have the space to do it, it's just faster.

You keep thowing around this statement of "Trillian does this"

Trillian is a piece of software, not a person.

You also say that AOL doesn't want third party software (Trillian) connecting to their servers. If that is true, why hasn't AOL changed the usage agreement to say so?

Until they do, nothing will change.

AOL "statement" to the press is meaningless.

If the governor of your state made a comment in an interview saying that people shouldn't drive faster than 45 in his state, but they didn't change the speed limit (still 65 on the highway)....would you accept a speeding ticket for going 60?

You keep arguing that people should respect AOL's wishes in this case, yet AOL refuses to make those wishes "official"

Ad for "twisting your words", yes, I guess I am guilty of unfairly applying logic to your purely emotional argument.

Wow, you must really understand security to make a blanket statement like that. It couldn't have anything to do with the security of the server now could it. This is a typical end user response. lol.

Glad to see that you have given up on trying to justify your "Trillian is criminal" position and fallen back to a more viable one "I hope AOL terminates your account". You are entitled to that opinion and it is a defensible one for a change.

The point is that you said:
"Ok, explain to me how Cerulean Studios implemented their AIM compatability without cracking AIM's servers."
and they did explain it to you.

Were you looking for MORE than an answer to your question?

as in dismissed them with valid responses to which u generally ignore their actual answer and ask for another! (one that fits your mindset i assume)

What valid responses? They present their opinions of the EULA as fact. There is no truth to any of their arguments until one of them shows up with real fact.

In my *OPINION* they are criminals. In your *OPINION* they aren't. There's not enough fact to support either claim is there?

Does the EULA state you cannot use Trillian or any other client besides AIM to connect to AOL's AIM servers?

Do the terms of usage you agree to when you signup for a un/pw state you cannot use Trillian or any other client besides AIM to connect to AOL's AIM servers?

Does anything/anyone, other than a company "spokesperson" in a news article (designed to spin the issue in AOL's favor) with absolutly no corporate power state you cannot use Trillian or any other client besides AIM to connect to AOL's AIM servers?

Does the EULA specifically grant you the right to connect in any way that you please, or is there a level of assumption there? I want to know how you calculate that you have the right to connect any way that you please.

Because, by law, Usage Agreements are exclusive agreements, not inclusive agreements.

Unless specifically prohibited, actions are legally assumed to be permitted.

Obviously, doing whatever it is you do for a living, you have never been involved in any legal cases involving "Acceptable Use", "Rules of Conduct", "User Agreements", or "End User Licence Agreements"

Actually, I have cited the clauses of the agreement to support my case.

You have cited no law whatsoever to support your case.

You have cited agreement clauses to try and support yours, but your argument there falls apart because you do not know the legal difference between "Exclusive Agreement" and "Inclusive Agreement"

True, that would be the only reason that would have to give IF they change their Usage Agreement to say so.

Until they do, personal requests are simply that, personal, and have no binding force whatsoever.

Show me the law that grants you this.

You are correct that I have not ever been involved in legal cases regarding EULA's, or other contractual agreements. This is due to the fact that I understand enough about contract law to protect both myself and my company, and also know not to assume anything. Unless it is written into the contract, you have absolutely no claim to it. Feel free to ask any lawyer. So, you've been involved in these sorts of cases? Is this due to the fact that you don't know what you are talking about? That comment sure did wonders to your credibility.

Show me the clause in the EULA you agreed to that states without doubt that you are allowed to connect to AOL's servers using any method you desire. Please, I'm all ears.

"LOL!" There's really nothing else I can say here. You've definately proven your case. You've proven it so well, that you may as well pay all those license fees again, and uhh hire a lawyer, you shouldn't represent yourself. Not even in a talkback forum. ;-)

Actually, they could have put it in that little popup ad window that they offer to their AIM users, and well that would be binding enough. Wouldn't that burn your a** huh? How do you know that it hasn't already been posted there? Feel free to tell me how wrong I still am. I need more laughs.

Tell me fred, seriously. Why aren't any of the other clients affected? Is it perhaps that they may have permission to use the AIM protocol, and connect to AIM servers?

No, I've been involved in those cases becuase software I have written has been improperly used by people like you who "think" they "understand enough about contract law" and ended up violating the contract and the law as a result. I have (successfully) defended my contracts and Usage Agreements several times in court. so, not only does that NOT damge my credibility, it gives me great credibility compared to you, who has only his own (misinformed) opinion to go on. You say "feel free to ask any lawyer". I have, and have had to defend my position in court. Have YOU bothered to ask a lawyer? Or are you just running on your own opinion here?

As for your claim of "Unless it is written into the contract, you have absolutely no claim to it." you really do need to ask that Lawyer about the difference between "Exclusive Agreement" and "Inclusive Agreement". You would be right if the User Agreement at AOL was an "Inclusive Agreement", but it is not. (Therefore, you are wrong)

"State of Washington v. America Online et al 1998"
Definition of AOL Usage Agreement as an Exlusive Agreement.

Definition of "Exclusive Agreement"
"Definition of Standard Terms" - American Bar Association.

Ok, your turn, now show me ANY law supporting your argument.

You can laugh all you want....but it is obvious to everyone reading this that you are not providing ANY contrary evidence.

I never said that I'm "allowed to connect to AOL's servers using any method you desire".

That's YOUR twisting of my words.

I said that I'm allowed to connect with any software that is not prohibited in the agreement.
(Again, see other post for case citation backing this up)

If they did that it might be acceptable.

In this case it is a moot point because they have not done so. Easy to prove, bring up AIM. The notfication is not here now, and it is easy to prove that it has not been there (all I had to do was ask someone who still uses AIM every day)

Interesting that you have resorted to purely "hypothetical" cases in an attempt to not admit that you have no facts to back up your arguments.

You guy really need to re read that EULA.

Why should I bother, it's not like you've even read your terms of agreement.

It's obvious that you are an idiot. ;-)

How is it easy to prove, it could have been there for a week, two weeks ago. Do prove it. I want fact not opinion.

I have.

I've also called AOL and asked a lawyer.

The lawyer has agreed with my reading of the EULA and AOL has confirmed that the EULA is an exclusive agreement and that I do have the right to do anyhting "not destructive, abusive, or prohibited in the agreement" (direct quote) (note though that destuctive and abusive were already prohibited int he agreement).

You turn to come up with facts instead of insults. Call a lawyer. Call AOL yourself. Be prepared to acknowledge that you are wrong after doing those two.

Wow, once again you are ignoring the facts and resorting to insults.

I read the agreement, I have cited case law supporting what it does and does not cover.

All you have done is claim that I haven't read it.

LOL

You asked for proof. I gave you US case law.
I asked for proof. You respond with "Why should I bother"

My answer is simple. Unless you "bother" you have left it obvious to everyone that you have no evidence, no facts, and no argument. (but everyone knew that anyhow)

Wow. I ask for contrary evidence. You resort to insults.

Not unusual at all for you.

I ask again. Do you have ANY evidence or proof to offer at all?

I have given you the text of the EULA, the case law supporting it, and statements by AOL themselves.

What have you got other than insults?

Fact. It has NOT been there.

I do not need to prove that it hasn't been any more than I have to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese.

If AOL had done this (which they haven't) they would have to document that they had done so.

The burden is on them, not on me.

Interesting that you no longer have any facts to support your argument and have resorted to "prove that this purely hypothetical case didn't happen" in an attempt to look less foolish.

That's good, EVERYONE is disagreeing with me. EVERYONE being what 3 or 4 out of how many thousand registered users? More stuff right out of your rear end. You have provided no case law, you said "State of Washington v America Online et al - 1998" ok. Here's some "case law" that's as solid as yours. "State of your rear end" v "Everyone at BetaNews.com" et al - 2002.

Nope, and neither do you. As I said, you are stating opinion, not fact. Never once have you provided any evidence what so ever. I've been man enough to admit that I am basing my opinion off of my interpretation of the EULA. I may error on the safe side, but then there's a reason I've never had to defend against an EULA violation.

Case closed, conversation ended. (Another fact you chose to overlook.)

I gave you the citation, now you (as you have so often told me) go do the work yourself and look it up.

Also note that I did not say that "everyone" disagreed with you. I said that it is obvious to everyone that you have failed to provide any "facts" to back up your argument.

Next time you want to put words in my mouth to try and disguise your failed logic, try better ones.

Actually I have provided you with plenty of fact.

I have given you the text of the EULA.

I have given you case law citiation supporting my reading of the Agreement.

I have given you quotes from AOL supporting my reading of the agreement.

I have (as you requested) contacted a lawyer and asked him about it, and have given you his answer.

That's plenty of evidence. If you choose to ignore it, well, that's your problem.

Oh, and you can say "case closed, conversation ended" and rtun away all you want.

I neither need or want your permission or approval to post in here. If you choose to stop, you may. If I choose to show how flawed your arguments are and how mistaken your logic is....I can do that.

For someone who has now said several times that he has posted his last ont he subject...you seem to keep posting more.

You have not provided a SINGLE link to any evidence supporting your claim, until you do so you are talking out of your ass, case closed.

Case closed? Maybe in your world.

I do not have to provide you with "liks" as not all of the information in the world is accessible from your web browser.

Do the work. Go look it up.

Prove it, or admit that it's FUD, plain and simple. You won't take an AOL representitive's word as fact, why the hell should I take yours? It's done guy, give it up. We have reached an impass, until you can provide proof your claims are worthless. I imagine you lost in court a LOT. "Judge, I read once that AOL's agreement was exclusive, you can go look it used to be in one of those books over there"

Wow, you really do know nothign about case law do you?

Go look up "precedence"

I would quite happily stand in front of a judge and submit as evidence the fact that in a previous case such-and-such was found and accepted as fact.

That's what "case law" as opposed to "law" in the legislative sense is all about.

That is correct, then it is up to the judge to verify wheter it is coorect and it would apply to that case. All you have to do is supply, the judge has to do his own work and verify it.

Aww, poor little guy, did I hurt your feelings?

I don't want your "liks", I won't rub your belly either. "Fetch" some real proof.

Why? You have yet to show any. You can quote all you like, if you don't provide sources your quotes are meaningless.

You claim that as fact, what do you have to back that up?

nope as im sure there are many clients out there without any kind of deal with aol.

my guess is its that trillian has become popular enough for aol to consider it a threat to their monopoly.

on assumption because thats how the internet generally works. hell, the only situation where microsoft has ever blocked another program from working (that i can think of) with their software was the win31/drdos thing (which I seem to remember u were on drdos's side - odd that... considering the simular situation!).... so even the company you complain most of being to propretry/closed hasnt done anything like this in many years. There are clients to connect to exchange server - microsoft doesnt block these. There are clients to connect to terminal server sessions, microsoft doesnt block these.

if microsoft suddenly decided that no other IM client could run on windows other than windows messenger the whole of american would be screaming "antitrust" "anti-competitive" blah blah blah. So why is it ok for AOL so say that only their software can work with another item of their software?

AOL is pretty much setting a precident here by blocking other software - THAT is why it can be seen that trillian didnt need permission.

Nope, not at all.

I'm just curious how many more posts you will make in here that contain nothing but personal attacks.

It's really interesting that you have given up trying to defend your self-contradictory and impossible position and just call other people names now.

I did provide sources for my quotes. You have chosen to not verify those sources.

Perhaps you can't get in to the University's Law Library?

(most do require that you be 18 or accompanied by an adult guardian)

hehe hmmm it would be interesting to see a poll of the readers to who thinks which one of you two is the idiot.

If I had to, I could subpeona records from AOL to prove it.

Fortunately I do not have to prove it to you or anyone.

You made up a ridiculous hypothetical case and then demanded that I disprove it.

I "could" do the same and demand that you prove that AOL has not contacted their users via popup and granted them all express permission to use Trillian and to call you funny names.

Both are ridiculous.

They all use the same protocol. How can you target one without targetting all of them? The only thought I can come up with is that all of the other clients implement AIM correctly. If this is the case, it brings new light on the claim that Trillian is a security concern.

AntiTrust doesn't apply unless the marketshare of the product involved is enough to s*** the market. They aren't blocking all other software, just the guys that aren't playing by AOL's rules. They are AOL's servers don't forget. The folks over at Cerulean Studios are more than welcome to put up their own servers. It's not antitrust if your property is being exploited without your direct concent. :-)

I haven't given up, you'll find that I'm actually conversing with lots of folks, just not you. How many more personal attacks will it take to get the message? I'm game, I've been banned once I'm not afraid of being banned again. ;-)

Only an idiot would claim that his opinion is fact without providing even a shred of proof. LOL

That's not *entirely* true, and you know it. I am not a judge, I'm flattered that you think that I am. LOL

I'm not twisting your words, you implied it.

Actually I mentioned something like that to Nate in a personal email about two weeks ago.

I can think of about half a dozen methods of identifying a particular client/version implementation without assuming improper protocol implementation including (but not limited to) client id requests, timings, buffer sizes, client file id requests, and logic maps.

The most likely in this case is client id requests. It would NOT be legal for Trillian (or any other client) to impersonate the client id of the AIM software itself, so it (the client) does still have to uniquely identify itself.

The most likely case if that AOl is blocking based ont he client id returned by the Trillian software, and Cerulan keeps changing the client id to something that AOL has not blocked.

Again, Cerulan could preven the blocking by returning the same id sting that AIM uses and then AOL couldn't block it without blocking the AIM software, but that wou indeed be illegal, so Cerulan has NOT done that. Instead they seem to be betting that AOL will tire of the cat and mouse game before they do.

Wow an outright statement that you have no respect whatsoever for the people who own the server you are using.

You claimed earlier that in a situation such as this you would "do the right and ethical thing" and stop using the server.

Are you going to do so, or are you going to admit that you are a complete hypocrite?

Let's see...you did that when you stated your opinion that Cerulan had commited criminal acts...and then tried to claim that it was FACT...even though you had no proof.

I have provided you with plenty of evidence and proof.

You may choose to ignore it on the grounds that you don't believe that anything exists unless you can connect to it with your web browser, and that you feel that going to a library is a "waste of your time"

However, your choice to ignore the evidence does not in any way at all make it disappear. It just makes you ignorant of the facts.

I'm voting for the guy who just posted that he has been banned before and is ready to be banned again because he doesn't care about the rules that BetaNews has.

Wow, you really can't read can you?

His response was to my post about "precedence". He isn't referring to you when the says "the judge" he is referring to the judge in the hypothetical courtroom you described.

Actually I said ouright that I can connect "using any client no specifically prohibited"

The part about "connect in any way I want to" was not implied by me...it was a figment of your imagination. (Actually, YOU said it several time in attempt to put up "straw man" arguments, but no one fell for those)

Of course they have different signatures (I'd hope). I'll toy with that concept when I get home if I can find some free time. I wrote a tool to log data sent to and from a single socket a few months back, this is a perfect test for it.

The ethical thing to do is to uphold my Constitutional right to free speech. If the BetaNews gods think it's inappropriate, it's up to them to censor it. I will not censor myself. Why are you bringing this up anyway, because you feel it's easy to s*** the focus to me directly? Go for it, you'll make a lot of enemies by even mentioning the fact that I must heed advice that would violate my constitutional rights.

What evidence? Again, provide references. Book page chapter paragraph, OR link. It's not my responsibility to go to the law library and find this data on my own. If you want to use it, site your references in full.

I'm sorry, are you an American?

If you can twist them, so can I.

Yep, and I'm a brain surgeon too.

You really do need to read up on the law.

Free Speech is protected by the First Amendment is protected public forums.

It does not allow you to use someone else's forum in any manner you choose.

Since BetaNews owns this forum, has not put it in the public domain, and has published restriction of it's use, you do NOT have First Amendment protection for your posts here.

You want links to support it:
(all are US Supreme Court rulings)

Profanity not protected
http://www.epic.org/free...iller_v_california.html

Personal Attacks not protected
http://www.epic.org/free...ch/Chaplinsky_v_NH.html

Slander against private invidual not protected
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/Gertz_v_Welch.html

Free Speech protection does not apply to private forums
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cyberp_v_aol.html

So, the ethical thing to do would be to stop claiming Free Speech protection in a forum that you have no such right in.

Oh, was that all you wanted?

"State of Washington v America Online et al - 1998"

Earl Miller, a lawyer for AOL is giving a deposition.

Page 172.
Lines 22 and 23.

Miller - "That is correct. The Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct are Exclusive Agreements under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia"

Yes.

Why?

If it's because you thing you have some kind of Free Speech protection in here.....scroll up and check the links I gave. This is not a "public forum" it is a private one owned by BetaNews and they can restrict your activities.

WOW, now, how much effort did it take to do that huh? Since you actually followed through, I'll take you on your word that the information is correct.

Thank you.

In answer (nor sarcastic, but sincere) it didn't take much effort. It's on the bookshelf in my library/office down the hall. I have a copy because of some consulting work I did for the state back then.

"I wrote a tool to log data sent to and from a single socket a few months back, this is a perfect test for it."

You didn't like any of the 5 billion and 1* pre-existing packet sniffers that are available? so you had to write your own.

*Note: Might be a slight over-exageration.

They do NOT all use the same protocol. Trillian uses the OSCAR protocol, and most other clients use the TOC protocol.

Hey everybody, lookie here....I'm betting that fewt won't respond to this because he realized that he's wrong.....again.

Well, maybe that's where AOL sees a problem huh?

An interesting thing in light of all this...

I just installed Trillian .724, which signed on to AIM but won't show the users that are online. It's too bad, because Trillian rules.

Anyway, I went back to the standard AIM client (AIM connectivity is a necessity for me!) and get this - it imported all the users from Trillian that weren't already on my AIM list! It added them under "Merged Contacts."

Interesting.............

AOL will just keep on blocking them. They don't want Trillian on their network. It's their network, their software, their money. Rediculous.

Not rediclious. Think about this. Put yourself in their shoes. You make software thats fully compatable with your network. You incorporate advertisements into it to, bring you in revenue. Which makes you happy. Your familiar with how to support this software also.

Now look at this. Some punk company comes in. Uses your network (without your consent) replaces your software (without your consent, on a multi program level), takes away from your ad revenue, AND causes you more support issues because people aren't familiar with the software. Which in the end just costs you more money.

I am SURE you would react the same, if not worse.

Lets think about this.
Scenario #1,

You build a house. You leave the door unlocked, and tell your friends friends to come in without knocking. Somone you don't know off the street comes in, gets a beer out of the fridge, plants himself on the couch, watches the game, wears your clothes, and decides not to leave. Do you call the cops, or do you just let him be?

Scenario #2,
You open a store. You lock the doors. Some guy figures out how to make a key that fits your lock. He unlocks the door, enters the store, and takes a bag of stuff out with him. Is he a thief?

I think I've said enough.

I was supporting AOL in this scenario, sorry for the confusion.

If they are such 'criminals' as you make them out to be...tell me, why isn't ICQ or Yahoo or Microsoft complaining of the same thing AOL are? Especially given that AOL OWN ICQ! Why do AOL only seem to worry about their 'criminal behaviour' with AIM and not ICQ as well?

I don't know, I'm not AOL, Microsoft, or Yahoo. AOL said no, they are doing it anyway. It's as simple as that.

Why?

Microsoft and Yahoo are for openness in the chat clients.

AOL doesn't give a rats @$$ about ICQ, why do you think they took the best chat client and made it the worst. The more crappy it becomes, the better they thinnk AIM will look.

My point was this: AOL calls Trillian a "hack that endangers the security of AIM".

If this is to be taken up in court, I would be interested to see how they would defend that statement given their double-standards. i.e. Trillian endangers the security of AIM but not ICQ.

They have broken into, and are using AOL's service without AOL's permission, that classifies Trillian as a group of crackers. (They do however need to use the correct term) I'm sure it would go a LONG way in court.

Yeah, you've said enough...because you are so far off base it's not even funny.

Let's look at your scenarios:
---------
Scenario #1,

You build a house. You leave the door unlocked, and tell your friends friends to come in without knocking. Somone you don't know off the street comes in, gets a beer out of the fridge, plants himself on the couch, watches the game, wears your clothes, and decides not to leave. Do you call the cops, or do you just let him be?
-----------
Actually the people in this scenario would be the "friends" you started with. The Trillian users are all AIM users who accepted the AIm agreement and ARE authorized to use those servers. AOL wants to restrict which client they use, but there isno language to that effect in the usage agreement.

--------------
Scenario #2,
You open a store. You lock the doors. Some guy figures out how to make a key that fits your lock. He unlocks the door, enters the store, and takes a bag of stuff out with him. Is he a thief?
--------------
Wrong again. The person entering is someone you already gave the key to and gave permission to enter (the AIM users). They are not conducting ANY activity that they were not already given permission to do (sending/receiving AIM message commands)

Actually you are talking about two different groups. (and you are wrong about both)

You say "They have broken into, and are using AOL's service without AOL's permission, that classifies Trillian as a group of crackers. (They do however need to use the correct term) I'm sure it would go a LONG way in court. "

Cerulan (the company that makes Trillian) has not "broken into" AOL's servers, nor have they used ANY service of AOL's at all.

The users who run Trillian ARE connecting to AOL's servers and using those services. However, they (the users) are already authorized to do so.

Since you like scenario's so much, here's one for you:
You set up a web page that requires membership and sign users up for it. At that time, you make no restriction as to what web browser they can use. Later you decide that the users shoudl have to use your web browser that you wrote.

1. Can you make that requirement: Yes.

2. Can you make it (legally) without changing the language of your useage agreement: No. If you did, your users could legally sue you for breaching the agreement (even for a free service)

3. Can you make it retroactively: No.

4. Can you take ANY legal action of any kind against the authors of other web browsers: No.

Wrong, it has nothing to do with AIM users, you are taking it out of context, and mangling it into whatever suits your "cause". AOL's beef is not with AIM users, it is with the fact that Trillian is hacking into AOL's systems instead of connecting with permission. Trillian as a whole is showing poor business ethic by it's brute force attempt to steal from AOL.

"Cerulan (the company that makes Trillian) has not "broken into" AOL's servers, nor have they used ANY service of AOL's at all. "

Oh? You mean to tell me that they didn't test their software before releasing it to the public?

Give it up, they are worthless "crackers" nothing more than common thugs.

Ok, Trillian is a piece of software, not a person or group.

The company who wrote it (Cerulan) has never been shown to have hacked, cracked, or even touched AOL's servers in any way at all.

A "spokesperson" for AOL claimed that they did in a conversation with a reporter. Suspiciously though, AOL has not filed civil or criminal charges against Cerulan. This makes me doubt that the statement by the "spokesperson" has any eveidence behind it. If it did, AOL would have taken stronger measures than "issuing a statement to the press"

Correct.

Cerulan (the company) did not test the software.

Authorized AIM users (like me) did.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you work for Cerulean Studios simply for the fact that you are so adament that they have done absolutely no wrong. You argue as though you have first hand information about their involvement with AOL.

Work for them....no.

(Though it's funny you say that...you've also claimed that I work for Microsoft and a number of other companies anytime I disagree with you)

And yes, I do know how Trillian was tested originally as I was one of their alpha testers before Trillian went to beta.

fewt,

First, by several clues.

Second, if Microsoft is this really gigantic evil corporation....

Why is it AOL/TW that is doing all this b****ing about Trillian allowing users to connect to talk to other AIM users.

If this is a "security" issue, why is it that it's Trillian, not AIM that allows "secure IM sessions".

Do you realize, Trillian with secure IM's, encrypts your data, sends it, then it unencrypts at the other user's PC?

Do you realize, that the security AOL is really worried about, is the fast that, they now can no longer violate your civial rights to privacy?

Microsoft does not care about Trillian, Yahoo does not care about Trillian... Why? Because both companies are not trying to make a monopoly of the IM industry like your precious AOL Time Warner.

Oh? I don't recall ever saying that you worked for Microsoft, please provide the link to refresh my memory.

>First, by several clues.
>

What clues, all I see is a period at the end of that thought.

>Second, if Microsoft is this really gigantic evil >corporation....

Why are you bringing them into this? What were those numbers again? 15,000 to 7,000

>Why is it AOL/TW that is doing all this b****ing about >Trillian allowing users to connect to talk to other AIM >users.

I dunno, maybe it's because they OWN the servers Trillian is connecting to, and they they think it's a bad idea. They to have the right to think for themselves.

>If this is a "security" issue, why is it that it's >Trillian, not AIM that allows "secure IM sessions".

Dunno, why is it that Trillian doesn't test their own code?

>Do you realize, Trillian with secure IM's, encrypts your >data, sends it, then it unencrypts at the other user's PC?

So..

>Do you realize, that the security AOL is really worried >about, is the fast that, they now can no longer violate >your civial rights to privacy?

Oh, where's the proof to back that little bit of FUD?

>Microsoft does not care about Trillian, Yahoo does not >care about Trillian... Why? Because both companies are not >trying to make a monopoly of the IM industry like your >precious AOL Time Warner.

Oh? Microsoft didn't try to own AIM? LOL! Who cares what they think, we aren't talking about Microsoft or Yahoo here.

its a shame trillian isnt made by a bigger company with more money behind it. I'd love to see them take aol to court for slander about the hacking claims and any other claims they can slap on aol for this monopolistic conduct.

Slander! They *ARE* hacking AOL's servers.

maybe... maybe NOT!

i'd just rather see that argument played out in a court.

Can you, or has anyone, provided proof of unlawful acts?

If I put up a sign in my yard that warns that you will be shot if you trespass on my property, and you ignore it, do I have to prove that you had intent? No, I just have to prove that you were on my property against my wishes.

Correct. IF YOU PUT UP A SIGN.

AOL has done nothing of the sort. Their "sign" (the usage agreement) does not say anything about not conencting via third party software.

To correct your analogy....if you are quoted in the newspaper as saying "you will be shot if you trespass on my property" and then shoot someone who steps on your lawn, you are NOT within your rights unless you can PROVE that the person you shot read the article and convince a jury that your statement to the press is "legal notification" (some, but very few, jurisdictions will accept it)

Sorry, missed this reply until now.

I'm not going to take the time to dig through the Betanews archives to find a link for you, but the most recent occasion was about two months ago in response to an article about WPA in XP.

A statement through the press *IS* legal notification, look at the DOJ vs Microsoft case. Look at most cases, even marriage and divorce in some places require it.

No, I want a link. You made the claim, now provide the evidence to support it.

No.. people lie to the press all the time, most presidents even do.

The press is basically used to spin issues in your favor, not for truth telling.

Just because something is reported in the Dayton Daily News, the New York Times, or the Peoples Press Pioneer, does not make it factual.

President George Bush was once quoted in many news papers around the country as stating, "No new taxes", we got new taxes, that sure did bite him on the butt.

Or

President Bill Clinton, under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", it made headlines in the newspapers, was it a factual statement? Oops.

You aren't married are you? You haven't followed the DOJ vs MS trial have you? You are 15 years old aren't you? You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Two words, "Federal Register". Check up on it. While you are at it, call your nearest lawyer, and ask them under what circumstances you have to place an add in the paper giving notice of intent. Have you ever heard of a public auction? Published in the newspaper baby.

Am I 15? No

Do I know laws? Yes.

How so? Took Law courses in college.

Am I some little punk kid? No.

A newspaper, be it the Federal Register, The New York Times, The Free Press, The Associated Press is specualtion and heresay at best. If I take out an add to sell soemthing, and I don't own it, can I get in trouble? Heck yeah. Why? False advertising.

Your argument is still not holding the water you think it does.

Another case where you are shooting off your mouth without a clue what you are talking about.

"Publishing Notice" in a newspaper has very specific guidelines. A quote to a reporter is NOT "Legal Notice". You will also find that when the notice is targeted to an individual or a group, "Publishing Notice" is only acceptabel as notice if there is no method of directly contacting the parties in question.

Since AOL does have our contact information, "Published Notice" (even if done correctly) would not be legal unless an attempt was made for direct notification.

In this case it is still a moot point since a quote to a reporter is not legal "Published Notification" (call your local courthouse and ask)

> You aren't married are you?

Marriage notices must follow specific guidelines, a quote to a reported is not sufficient.

Divorce notices via "Published Notice" are only legal if all attempts at direct contact have failed (attempting direct contact first IS a requirement)

> You haven't followed the DOJ vs MS trial have you?

Again, published "Legal Notices" in lawsuits must follow a strict format, location, and period of repetition. Quotes to reporters are insufficient.

> You are 15 years old aren't you?
> You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

Personal attacks that have no merit. He knows more about the law int his case than you do.

> Two words, "Federal Register". Check up on it.

HUGE difference between the Federal Register and a quote in a newspaper. (not sure whay you are even trying to compare the two)

> While you are at it, call your nearest lawyer,
> and ask them under what circumstances you have
> to place an add in the paper giving notice of
> intent.

The answer is: "When you have made repeated attempts to contact the party directly and all of those attempts have failed, or when you have no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the party in question and have no method of direct communication"

Doesn't apply in this case at all since AOL has means of contacting their users directly and have not mader any such attempt.

> Have you ever heard of a public auction?
> Published in the newspaper baby.

Yes they are. And if an individual's property is being autioned off without their permission, the individual must be contacted directly with notification first. If there is no known method of contacting the individual or repeated attempts at contact have failed, then and only then is "published notification" in the newspaper sufficient. In that case, "published notification" must follow set out guidelines as to format, location, and repetition (these vary by jurisdiction, but usually require publication in the "Legal Notices" section of a local major newspaper, usually must be repeated for a period of five days, and usually have a set forth format)

You picked the wrong area to challenge. I used to own a self-storage facility and went through the "notification of public auction" process hundreds of times.

I won't bother to provide this any more than you have provided any of the evidence I have requested of you.

But tell you what, I'll take the time to find the link for you, if you'll back up your claim that you "have not resorted to name calling and personal attacks until after you were attacked first" by quoting what the "personal attack" was for each incident in this forum (the Trillian followups) where you have used profanity, personal attcks, insults, slander, and unnecessary expletives.

Taken right out of the EULA.

"you agree not to sell, license, rent, modify, distribute, copy, reproduce, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, publish, adapt, edit, or create derivative works from such materials or content."

Did I see "reproduce", "adapt", and "create derivitive works" in there? No, I must still be wrong. Lemme look a wee bit more.

Oh yeah!

"As noted above, reproduction, copying, or redistribution for commercial purposes of any materials or design elements on this site is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of America Online. Permission is granted only when certain limited criteria are met. For information on requesting such permission, please click here."

Wait, I'm still clicking!

WOW, look at this!

"Unless otherwise specified herein, this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and America Online with respect to this site and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous"

What were you saying about agreements? How about being backed into a corner?

I gave you the link the other day, you chose to "overlook" the facts.

Have fun. :-)

You failed your law classes didn't you. See above. Ripped right out of AOL's EULA. What is it "assume" means again?

Oh, I've also provided lots of evidence to back every single one of my claims. It's all there above, you'll scroll to it eventually. That little wheel on the mouse, yep that one. That's called a "scroll wheel" it's used to move the page up and down. Try it, it's "cool".

Ok, let's look at those.

The "derivative works" section.
Since Trillian incorporated NO code taken directly from AIM, it is not a "derivative work" (look up the definition)

The "reproduction, copying, or redistribution" section.
It specifically says "materials or design elements on this site". Trillian does not use material or design elements of the AOL site.

The "entire agreement" section.
Yes, it is the entire agreement. Since it is an "Exclusibe Agreement" it is saying that nothing is excluded unless specified in that Agreement. (or another Agreement between AOL ond the user)

What was I saying about "backed into a corner"? I'm saying that you are. You are quoting sections that do NOT support your case.

Oddly enough you quoted them in response to a post about "Legal Notification" and "Published Notification" in newspapers (which it has nothing to do with) Seems pretty desperate to me.

fewt says "You failed your law classes didn't you. See above. Ripped right out of AOL's EULA. What is it "assume" means again? "

What is this supposed to mean? No one is "assuming" anything about the EULA for AIM except you. The legal backing for it is very specific. You are "assuming" (incorrectly) that the EULA must grant the user specific rights as to what they CAN do. Since it is an "Exclusive Agreement" you are wrong, the user is granted the right do do anything not specifically prohibited by the EULA.

So I put a lot more faith in his law classes than your (incorrect) assumptions about the law.

Really?

Let's take up "Trespass" and "hacking".

Both are accusations you have made.

You have not provided any evidence to back up either of these claims. When I challenged you lack of evidence for those (in another thread) your response was that you dropped those because other threads were more "fun".

How does that fit in with your claim here that you have "provided lots of evidence to back every single one of my claims."

Just for the record, it was Business Law, and I got A's in both courses, Business Law I and Busienss Law II.

Tho I am not a lawyer, I do have a lot of Law books in the garage in boxes.

I'm sorry? Show me the paragraph where it states that it is either inclusive, or exclusive.

I'm done talking to the wall guy. May as well just let it go.

I took math, I managed to get an A. Mathmatition that does not make. Wait, I took a 3COM switch class that makes me a qualified Network Engineer! LOL I took biology in hogh school, does this make me a brain surgeon? Food for thought. ;-)

Hopefully not, since I am not sure what "hogh school" is. And, taking Business Law, and passing the two courses, helps me to understand the Law more than you obviously do.

It's so easy to give up when you're getting your rear kicked in a debate.

You still have not offered any factual proof to support any of your arguments.