Again: Microsoft is not to blame in this situation. It's a criminal case filed by the Russian authorities against Mr. Ponosov. Translation (for you non-legal folk): It's a crime against the STATE. Microsoft could jump up and down and scream "Nooooo!!!!" and they could (likely) ignore it. All MS can do is file a civil compliant, which they are NOT. So point your crooked fingers at Russia's legal system (if you have to pull it out of your nose long enough).

the way it works, russian officials wouldn't dig or give a flying flock over some copyright infringement, unless folks from microsoft investigate the school, collect all the evidence, and then send the materials/leads to the police. in that case, _may_be_, the police will raise their asses off the chairs and actually do something.

don't be naive - microsoft has _everything_ to do with starting the case, same way as adobe had everything to do with starting sklyarov/elcomsoft dmca case.
even though they tried to save their s***ty face by backing off later, after it got media attention.

Oh please, Russia has wanted into the WTO for a long time now, they are doing this to appease every government and all large companies. This isn't some sort of Microsoft conspiracy, get your head out of the sand.

> get your head out of the sand

wow, your a prime example of whats wrong with Americas education system these days.

"assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups."

over and out.

Oh goody, another prime example of your education level.

Interesting article on CNET from Sept of 2004 stating among other things:
- MS to release low price $36.00 version of Windows (called Starter Edition)in Russia by (end of 2004) in response to...
-BSA / IDC report from July 2004 that 97 percent of software in Russia is pirated- a figure bested only by China, Vietnam, Ukraine and Indonesia. The article appears at: http://news.com.com/Russ...100-1016_3-5381547.html

> Can we *please* stop this pointless debate over the semantics and definition of "stealing" and "theft"?

then stop calling it "stealing", and "theft", and "piracy" - which it clearly is not. you're trying to shamelessly tie negative cloud behind long-used and well-defined theft and piracy (which they deserve) to something very different in nature.

play fair - teach people how copyright infringement is bad in your opinion, without calling it names.

i'll quote Arakiel, since he put it so well:

If you took something that doesn't belong to you, that's stealing by every measure that matters. Anything else is semantic games by entitlement twats who are only interested in how they can screw someone else to get what they want. Congratulations on joining the morally bankrupt.

I can't help it if you are incapable of wrapping your head around that. Some folks seem to be lacking in basic common sense these days.

Language evolves, the point and negative connotations still apply.

> If you took something that doesn't belong to you...

then fishing (as in ocean) and hunting is stealing, too. breathing, probably, too (unless you really believe that air that you breath belongs to you).

just remember: analogy is not a proof. and "semantic" matters - since some are sticking to it as hard as they can.

> Language evolves...

don't confuse people's language and publisher lawyer's language.

Who "owns" the fish, oceans and air? God? He doesn't show up in court too often. Music, software, books, movies are typically owned by people. Tangible "ownership" is the basis of property rights in the U.S. (and many other countries). It's what separates communist/socialist places from democratic places. In America, we can "own" things. What good would owning it be if you cannot defend what you "own"? So by your logic, your land and house and the cloths you wear are free for anyone to take? That's not theft, right? That's just "infringement". Yeah, right.

i believe my logic was quite simple to understand:
1. PC_Tool & Arakiel say that if you take something that doesn't belong to you - that's theft.
2. i say that taking something that doesn't belong to you (e.g. air) is, in fact, not theft. taking something that belongs to other people from them - is (most likely) theft.
3. you should be able to see the difference.

the point you made in your post supports my view (see your choice of examples), not pc_tool's.

then fishing (as in ocean) and hunting is stealing, too. breathing, probably, too (unless you really believe that air that you breath belongs to you).

Well, if you are "hunting" a person's cattle on private property, then there are a number of laws you have broken. Just as you would be doing if you took fish from a fish farm without the consent of its proprietors. Even breathing air in a private building could be considered theft, if the legal occupants somehow made a business out of providing a pollution free elevated oxygen environment.

well your logic was *simple* ill give you that much.

1) it is, for my part anyway
2) your right
3) i'm sure they do since your only stating the obvious

end result: who the hell cares, copyright infringement/theft is still taking something that doesn't belong to you and DOES belong to someone else...i.e. the copyright HOLDER. in other words, your entire argument has no correlation to the discussion at hand unless you want to start in with some more ridiculous semantic games.

No-one owns the fish, moron.

Someone sure as hell owns the rights to the song.

Stop trying to wiggle out of it. You've got nothing.

Your logic assumes we're not discussing private property (air, fish...).

Anyone with a brain would assume, based on the article and subsequent discussion, that we're talking about property who's rights belong, in full, to someone *other* than you.

Sorry if we took for granted that we were discussing property belonging to *someone else*.

I kinda thought the article and the diiscussion around that made that *abundantly* clear.

No-one owns the air, genius, it's free for the taking. The song, however, is not.

See the difference?

> Someone sure as hell owns the rights to the song.

someone sure as hell royally owned rights to the america itself. somehow it played out not to be as just and obvious after all.

ah, yeah, "no one owns the songs, moron".

> unless you want to start in with some more ridiculous semantic games

in fact, i'd like to end the "semantic games", which i believe calling copyright infringement a "theft" is.

"someone sure as hell royally owned rights to the america itself. somehow it played out not to be as just and obvious after all."

WTH are you talking about?

"ah, yeah, "no one owns the songs, moron"." ...
um... The copyright holders and courts would beg to differ.

Logic seems to have escaped your grasp, your not even trying anymore are you.

:rolls eyes:
give it UP man, the court, media, IP holders and popular culture have commonly been using theft to describe copyright infringement for a VERY long time now. Why do you suppose that is? Because they break down at the basic elements to the same thing. The fact that Websters hasn't quite caught up yet and mentioned "electronic copying" in their definition, is a moot point. Everyone else knows what the hell is being talked about. Get over it. This is like arguing that identity theft isn't really identity theft since you didn't steal me. It's a retarded argument only relied upon by simple minded fools who don't want their "free toys" taken away.

> WTH are you talking about?

declaration of independence, of course.

> um... The copyright holders and courts would beg to differ.

and customers and citizens would beg to change the laws which you're trying to justify with the help of "semantic games".

"and customers and citizens would beg to change the laws which you're trying to justify with the help of "semantic games"."

Bulls***, people enjoy getting paid for their hard work and skill and reasonable people agree with them. It's only a small minority who want everything for free who seems to think there is a problem here. If the vast majority of "customers and citizens" wanted those laws changed, they would be. Most people OTOH aren't selfish and recognize another persons hard work.

ROFLMAO..

Wow. Sign up, man. I'm sure the handle, "Entitled twat" is available.

You are such a joke.

Artists own their music, and the rights to distribute it as they see fit.

This is called reality.

What you suggest is something called "fantasy".

Idealism is great and all, but at some point you have to grow up and be practical. Artists don't grow on trees, and creativity takes incentive.

Your idealism blinds you.

"~~I doubt a school teacher in siberia will incur much wrath. ~~ is bull crap.
In a country where you have to carry VODKA with you to bribe the local police in a speed trap. The point is Microsoft is tryng to make an example out of this person. Why ? to scare future piriates from doing so. This man is a school teacher and Microsoft should be helping the schools.
A real Piriate would not get caught ! "

Wow, you really need to get that anti-MS bug out of your @ss. MS is not going after this guy and mos likely is talking privately with the prosecution to get them to drop it. They need to be careful about how they do things to not give worthless scum a way to fight them saying "well, they didn't go after that guy so they are selectively enforcing thier copyrights". Of course YOU just have to use that apparent lack of action to shove your stupid "MS i5 3vil" bull**** rhetoric out to the world with your trolling comments.

The School teaqcher is going to the GULAG not you Peregrine1970 !!!
I bet If the shoe was on the your foot mabey you would not think like that .... ;-)

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd have been running Linux and none of this would have happened.

Simple as that.

~~I doubt a school teacher in siberia will incur much wrath. ~~ is bull crap.
In a country where you have to carry VODKA with you to bribe the local police in a speed trap. The point is Microsoft is tryng to make an example out of this person. Why ? to scare future piriates from doing so. This man is a school teacher and Microsoft should be helping the schools.
A real Piriate would not get caught !

If you read into this case more thoroughly, you'll discover it was filed by Russian authorities as a crime against the state. Microsoft cannot decline to prosecute. They can submit a civil claim, but they have clearly said they would not. So, all this finger pointing at MS is BS.

law is law, its what makes all things possible. Microsoft no doubt has a monopoly but this does not mean they can dictate to the civil courts in Russia.

I doubt a school teacher in siberia will incur much wrath.

***I doubt a school teacher in siberia will incur much wrath***

How wrong you are, under Russian law it is a very very long prison sentence.

This is Big Brother Microsoft Picking on one Small person to make a BIG EXAMPLE out of him. Sad but true he will go to the GULAG for loading school computers with an operating system that no one can afford to buy. Most people in that part of Russia can not afford clothes. This is sad but a true reality , Microsoft is a monopoly and they are gonna crusify this man !

Jeez Russia is some kind of a hell hole. Can't afford clothes? I guess the pervs will be trying to log on to Russia now to see if that's true.

"This is Big Brother Microsoft Picking on one Small person to make a BIG EXAMPLE out of him"

The Russian government is prosecuting him, not Microsoft

"Sad but true he will go to the GULAG for loading school computers with an operating system that no one can afford to buy"

Um...oh well? Don't steal, problem solved.

"Most people in that part of Russia can not afford clothes. This is sad but a true reality"

Then...what the hell do they need an OS for. They shouldn't even be buying computers! Clothes rank higher on the necessity list. *sniff* BS alert.

"Microsoft is a monopoly and they are gonna crusify this man !"

No the Russian government is, take it up with them.

"software/music/movie piracy" isn't "stealing" regardless of what lawyers or BSA may say.

I dislike lawyers and the BSA as much as the next guy, but you're dead wrong.

Posessing something that doesn't rightfully belong to you and against the owners wishes is theft no matter how you look at it.

Can we *please* stop this pointless debate over the semantics and definition of "stealing" and "theft"?

You people drag this out every chance you get so you can argue about something, *anything* other than how *wrong* piracy is.

Bourgeoisdude claps excitedly for PC_Tool

> Posessing [sic] something that doesn't
> rightfully belong to you and against the owners
> wishes is theft no matter how you look at it.

Making a copy doesn't fit this definition.

Can we *please* stop these pointless attempts at equating completely different notions (both semantically and conceptually) of "stealing" and "making a copy"?

You people drag this out every chance you get so you can argue about something, *anything* other than how *making a copy* has nothing to do with *stealing*.

Once again, spoken like a entitlement minded jerk who's never bothered to make anything with his own skill or ingenuity. I suppose next you'll give us your usual line about some mythical "freedoms" you lose when people protect their IP.

If you took something that doesn't belong to you, that's stealing by every measure that matters. Anything else is semantic games by entitlement twats who are only interested in how they can screw someone else to get what they want. Congratulations on joining the morally bankrupt.

"Piracy is robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation."

"Piracy" is used in place on "copyright infringement" so its importance is unconsciously inflated in the minds of the masses, and they associate "file sharing" with "bloody murder".
It's a very well known trick used by people whose job consists in convincing other through the use of speeches, likes lawyers or politicians.

So, what do we have here ?
A teacher, who probably got some copies of windows from a friend of his, and wants his pupils to be able to use computers in good conditions, probably because (it's a small russian village, right ?) he wouldn't have had the money to buy those copies.
So now, that guy will be sent in a camp in Sibery, place where it's known that the weakest usually don't survive (and i guess a teacher is not the kind of tough criminal that would make himself be respected there). So maybe his family will never see him again, just because he didn't give microsoft some money...

Is that Justice ?

So you replace the semantic games of "theft" vs "stealing" with a different one..."piracy" vs "copyright infringement". Bravo. Semantic games don't make it any less stealing.

"So, what do we have here ?
A teacher, who probably got some copies of windows from a friend of his, and wants his pupils to be able to use computers in good conditions, probably because (it's a small russian village, right ?) he wouldn't have had the money to buy those copies."

1 word...Linux.

"Is that Justice ?"

*shrug* beats me, it's Russians who would convict and send them there not the corporations. If you don't agree that the legal sentences are fair and just, take it up with the Russian government, not Microsoft.

Bull.

Fits just fine:

1.) It doesn't legally belong to you.
2.) You posess it against the owner's wishes.

I can't believe I got dragged into this BS again.

It's a copy you possess illegally and without permission of the owner (who has the sole rights to distruibution and creation of copies).

Go watch SouthPark and get a raging clue.

A teacher, who probably got some copies of windows from a friend of his,

...oh...he got it from a freind...well... I guess that makes it all better.

/sarcasm

Yay! More excuses...

I took a quote from you from down below, hope you don't mind :)

In America at least: "possession is nine tenths of the law" holds regardless. No reference to "stealing", simply pointing at "possession". If you possess something that isn't yours, without due approval or licensing, it can be called theft. At the very least, "illegal possession". You can argue all you want, but it won't matter in a court in front of a judge and jury.

oh, right, using windows without paying is such a crime...

he totally deserves to spend time in jail with rapists, killers, thieves...

/sarcasm

I guess you can't understand my point of view as you evidently lack a heart, and compassion.

do teachers in small villages near Ural ever have heard of Linux ?
Actually, I don't know, but I bet the probabilities are way under 50%.

And how do you want that sentence to be fair as the opposing parties have an obvious difference in wealth, and hence capacity to have a proper support (understand good lawyers).
Isn't it in USA that some law experts are really worrying about the RIAA lawsuits because the people they attack don't have the wealth to properly be defended ?

Oh, and, I'm sorry to contradict you again, but semantics are the center of the problem.
Laws are sentences, composed of words, that have a given meaning.
The interpretation of a law by a prosecutor or a lawyer defines what's legal or not, not the law in itself. Misinterpreting a law can be very dangerous, that's why terms must not be misrepresented, but chosen and used carefully, else it's just chaos, fear doubt and uncertainty.

Whether it is a crime or not, and the degree of punishment appropriate for such crimes are two different issues.

And how do you want that sentence to be fair as the opposing parties have an obvious difference in wealth...
Except the party opposing the teacher is not MS, but his own government.

The news didn't precise who the plaintiff was.

Although Microsoft has said it had not filed the lawsuit, there is still a certain unbalance if it is the russian government who filed.

the whole issue here is that the punishment seems blatantly inappropriate.

The claim I make is even backed by Vladimir Putin himself, according to some news reports.

"do teachers in small villages near Ural ever have heard of Linux ?
Actually, I don't know, but I bet the probabilities are way under 50%."

a) how incredibly bigoted of you
b) I'm sure they have heard of "theft"

"And how do you want that sentence to be fair as the opposing parties have an obvious difference in wealth, and hence capacity to have a proper support (understand good lawyers)."

Again, this is not a problem with the business but rather the government which allows itself to be swayed by that business at the expense of it's people. Take it up with the government.

"Oh, and, I'm sorry to contradict you again, but semantics are the center of the problem.
Laws are sentences, composed of words, that have a given meaning."

Bull. Your just playing at words to try and get your faulty views to pass muster, it has nothing to do with the legality of the term "pirate" and you know it. Stop kidding yourself and trying to spread BS.

You still haven't explained how it's Microsoft's fault this guy could get sent into the depths of hell. Sentencing is done by the government in question, in this case... Russia If you think the punishment they choose to impose isn't humanitarian then take it up with the Russian government, not Microsoft.

"I guess you can't understand my point of view as you evidently lack a heart, and compassion."

...While you wear your bleeding heart on your sleeve at the expense of good sense.

/nosarcasm

did i say it was microsoft fault ?

please quote a sentence of mine that says so.

using windows without paying is such a crime...


uhh.... it is.

he totally deserves to spend time in jail with rapists, killers, thieves...

Never said it, never implied it. But if this is the law in Russia, so be it. All the more reason it should not have been done.

Sorry, no pity for morons.

Agreed. But this is Russian law and sentencing. We have no say in it, whatsoever.

Once again, spoken like a jerk who has no arguments on the subject and resolves to personal insults every time subject comes up.

Whatever bull you manage to pile here, it doesn't change the fact that "making a copy" and "stealing" are two very different things, even under current US laws, yet alone under sane ones.

There have been plenty of arguments to your skewed point of view, presented to you MANY MANY times. You just refuse to listen to them because it means you can't get free stuff without being an ahole.

Wait wait...I'll bite and offer as much of an argument for my position as you provided for yours, then we can be on even ground.

"Making a copy doesn't fit this definition."

Yes it does.

There you go.

*rolls eyes* In the US it's called the "No Electronic Theft Act". Best of all, you can't even blame Bush for it, Clinton signed it. As for the rest of the world, I can't speak to it (unlike you who can't seem to avoid spewing out about things you don't understand)

Your right you didn't actually SAY it. You just implied it with every sentence you typed. My bad.

"The news didn't precise who the plaintiff was."

"Mr. Ponosov's case is a criminal case and as such was initiated and investigated by the public prosecutor's office in Russia."

Cant get much more precise then that.

"Although Microsoft has said it had not filed the lawsuit, there is still a certain unbalance if it is the russian government who filed."

What? By that logic, because governments are powerful and relatively wealthy by comparison to average citizens, average citizens should not be prosecuted or should be let off easy for crimes committed? That makes no sense!

No, that's wrong, I didn't do what you say.

I'm just saying that that whole affair is unfair.

oh, my bad, I had misunderstood that part of the article.
I still assume that the public prosecutor's office in Russia is kind of independant from the central government.

If a citizen is prosecuted by a government, then, there is a certain unbalance, that's a fact, unless a _proper_ defense can be offered.
Do you see many prosecutions started by citizens towards the government that succeed ? (i'm talking about russia, here)

and please, keep cool, i'm enjoying debating like that, it's no use bordering anger ;)

so, you think that guy has no excuse ?

that it's a russian problem and we shouldn't even have the right to say our opinion about something that happens in "another" country ?

hmmmm... then, why are you even answering me ?
I'm entitled to my opinion, and you, to yours.

Could you please state clearly your opinion on that affair or point me to a post where you do ?
edit: ok, case closed, thanks for the debate ;)

"and please, keep cool, i'm enjoying debating like that, it's no use bordering anger ;)"

Your right, my bad. People like Alexq and Avion get my dander up and I start seeing arguments everywhere. My apologies.

On the premise that a proper defense can be rendered for that individual, again that is a matter for that local government and it's people to resolve. I may not agree with the severity of the sentence but I'm an American and have no right to influence Russian internal workings. That is up to the people of Russia to sort out.

fair enough :)

First off, no I don't think he has an excuse. You would have to be pretty damn rural and backwater to not understand that software piracy is against the law. And if he WAS that rural he likely would have larger concerns then what OS is on a computer he can't afford to have anyway.

"that it's a russian problem and we shouldn't even have the right to say our opinion about something that happens in "another" country ?"

Sort of, what I'm saying is that my opinion doesn't matter one whit when it comes to Russian law, and it's not my place to try and influence Russian internal workings. As such I feel that getting all uppity about whats happening to this guy is sort of pointless.

"hmmmm... then, why are you even answering me ?
I'm entitled to my opinion, and you, to yours."

Well initially you gave the impression that it was somehow MS's fault for this guys predicament which is patently false. Since I understand now that such is NOT your claim then perhaps your right and we should stop here.

Are you capable of separating subject of discussion from the opponent? Do you even understand any of the words in that sentence?

I may or may not do any of the things you imply I do, either way it has nothing to do with validity of arguments I present. Can you get that into your little head? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

Your intelligence is so severely limited that you can't even separate subject of discussion from (perceived) actions of the opponent, it is not surprising then that you have no chance whatsoever to understand this (relatively more complex) subject itself.

Did you actually read text of that law? It made "copyright infringement" a criminal offense even when no profit was involved. It did not equate "copyright infringement" with "stealing", and under current US law those are two different offenses, covered by different laws, with different penalties.

And you know why? Because they ARE different.

"either way it has nothing to do with validity of arguments I present"

LOL, you didn't present any! That's the point you morally bankrupt idiot.

LOL subject of discussion my ass, your so full of your own crap you can't see anything but your own ignorance. Ahh well, since you don't want to bother actually giving any "reasons" why you think making a copy is not theft then I guess there isn't anything to discuss. As usual you don't have any arguments while at the same time, flaming anyone who doesn't offer any back to you. What a trip! Let's see if I can remember some from past "discussions" with you.

There was the one about copying not being theft, with nothing to back it up except your thoroughly debunked example of a bread machine that was so laughably absurd I shudder to even count it .
Then there was the one about some mythical loss of freedoms you suffer when a business protects it's IP...but again with nothing to back it up or what phantom freedoms have been lost.

I'm probably missing a few more absurd "arguments", you'll have to forgive me, I usually try and forget about loonies like you. I only remember these two because you stand out as REALLY loony.

*rolls eyes* you truly are either blind or utterly pathetic. Fanaticism at it's best, describes you perfectly. Semantic games is the only argument you have and it's pathetic. Truly. Copyright infringement is stealing by every measure of the word that matters. The fact that you disagree with how the term is used in popular culture is your own problem.

Justice oh yea! Stealing is stealing a teacher doesn't know right from wrong? Give me a break!

Depdns on how you choose to define stealing.

Bleeding hearts such as youself limit it to physical property being taken from someone else.

Progressive thinkers tend to apply the term to someone obtaining something outside the law, whether it's physical or not.

It doesn't belong to you, you have no right to it, if it's in your posession, you obtained it illegally. IOW, you stole it.

Call it whatever the hell you want. Doesn't change the fact that you now posess something you have no right to posess.

As I posted below:

If your entire definition of theft is hanging on the fact that you *must* deprive someone else of the product in question, you're a tad behind the times. Theft applies to any action that results in your posession of something that does not belong to you.

It did not equate "copyright infringement" with "stealing",

They made that connection in the title of the law:

No Electronic Theft Act.

If your entire definition of theft is hanging on the fact that you *must* deprive someone else of the product in question, you're a tad behind the times. Theft applies to any action that results in your posession of something that does not belong to you.

End of story.

USA PATRIOT Act.

what's in a name?

lmao...

OK. You got me there.

> ... does not belong to you.

That's the whole point. I happen to think that my copy of number "2" belongs to me, even though you might also have a copy, and even if you claim to be the first one to ever have a copy. Same about number "4576289320856438023465873...".

I never limited it to physical property. If you take away someone else's property (physical or not) without his consent that is stealing. But if you make a copy of his property without his consent, that is NOT stealing.

> Progressive thinkers tend to apply the term
> to someone obtaining something outside the law...

Taking laws of a particular country at a particular time as an absolute truth, even though we know laws change dramatically from time to time and from place to place, just how "progressive" are those "thinkers"?

That's the very definition of a reactionary conservatism: this is bad because it is illegal.

You get loonier every time you speak. You've completely left the realm of logic and delved right into the absurd.

However, that said, there is something compelling in your insanity that I just simply can't resist. Therefore...do you have a patent or copyright on the #2? No? That's too bad, because I DO and the justice system recognizes them as valid. If you want to use #2 you'll have to pay me or find a #2 alternative (I hear Rome came up with something using II) that you can use for free. Sorry but I worked hard designing and making #2 and it's just not economically feasible for me to give it away, gotta feed the family and all. You understand I'm sure.

Now...can we come back to reality with real examples or do you want to make a further idiot of yourself?

"I never limited it to physical property. If you take away someone else's property (physical or not) without his consent that is stealing. But if you make a copy of his property without his consent, that is NOT stealing."

Saying it isn't stealing doesn't make it true, although you can convince yourself of anything if you say it often enough. Of course it's stealing, you just wish it wasn't because your petty and small minded. You can only think about yourself and not the people who put hard work and years of developed skills into what you are STEALING.

"That's the very definition of a reactionary conservatism: this is bad because it is illegal."

No, it's illegal because it's bad. Realistic people recognize that taking something from someone without compensation is BAD. Civilization worked that one out centuries ago but apparently a few bad apples like yourself are too self centered to realize that what they are doing hurts everyone.

You're limiting your definition to the fact that it must deprive someone else.

How old-school of you.

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. Simple as that.

..and before you try and tell me your not "taking" it, since he still has the original:

Taking: Bringing into your posession.

OMG...

...just go away.

> You're limiting your definition to the fact
> that it must deprive someone else.

Yes, old school or not, that is the correct definition in my opinion. The whole negative aspect of the term "stealing" is based on fact that someone was deprived of something. And so applying this term to situations where no one was deprived of anything is plainly wrong. I understand why the likes of RIAA are doing it, but you don't have to buy their bull.

For most people it is hard to change their long term believes even when presented with clear evidence against them. If you want to stay in denial, that's your choice.

Oh please, what "clear evidence" have you provided aside from, it's true because I say so? None. Your just an "all information should be free" fanatical twirp. end of story. Grow up.

"that is the correct definition in my opinion"
and that is why you are morally bankrupt.

The IP holder IS deprived of something. Your business. Just because you don't like how the definition is used, doesn't make it untrue. Once again you show what a shallow self centered individual you are.

Dude..

When you have clear eveidence (ya know, something other than "I want it to be free, even though I didn't create it" BS), feel free.

Until then, all you've got is rhetoric in a lame attempt to get someone elses hard work for *nothing*.

Music, art, and software ain't free because *someone* put some work into making it, producing it, marketing it, and distributing it. Not mention the time that they invested learn how to actually *do* any of that.

Before you start whining about how it should be free simply because it's so damned easy to copy now, perhaps you should actually try thinking about someone else for once.

You've got nothing. Your selfish denail of the rights of the content owners speaks volumes to your overblown and mistaken sense of entitlement. Your ideas are not based on logic and practicallity, they're based on your own selfish desire to obtain for free that which others have worked hard to produce.

You are not entittled to the fruits of our hard work without compensation.

I never said "I want it to be free", nor did I ever say that I think I am entitled to get anything for free.

You are making things up, because you have no arguments to dispute what I actually said.

you didn't SAY anything idiot, you offered no arguments for your position AT ALL

You are defending the "information wants to be free" idiots by bringing out the tired old argument that "copying!=stealing".

Whether or not *you* do it doesn't enter into it. You cannot sit on both sides of the fence.

By every measure that matters IP theft, copyright infringement, and theft are the same thing.

You can fight reality all you want, it only serves to make you look more and more fanatical and insane.

Ya know, I think we *all* know that by the "old" definition, where to steal it, you must deprive someone of the product, copying isn't stealing. Fortunately, most of us also recognize that the "old" definition didn't take into account the modern world.

I am not defending anyone and I am certainly not trying to sit on both sides of the fence. If you weren't so busy attributing your own hysterical ideas to me (you think you are entitled to get everything for free, etc.) you might have actually understood what I was saying.

As to who is ignoring the reality... The reality is that already hundreds of millions of people use p2p networks to make copies (what you call stealing). Unless your plan is to put the entire population of planet in jail, you are fighting the war that has already been lost.

And it is not a question of "reward for creativity" that's at stake here, like some of the idiots in this forum think. Creativity will continue to be rewarded and authors of music and software will continue to make a lot of money after copying is decriminalized. Probably even more. It is just a question of changing business models. And this process is already well under way.

"you might have actually understood what I was saying."

Again, you haven't SAID anything. You've provided nothing to back up your "argument" whatever it may be.

"The reality is that already hundreds of millions of people use p2p networks to make copies (what you call stealing). Unless your plan is to put the entire population of planet in jail, you are fighting the war that has already been lost."

And that makes it OK? That's nothing but the same tired old excuses, "Everyone ELSE is doing it, whine whine whine"

"Creativity will continue to be rewarded and authors of music and software will continue to make a lot of money after copying is decriminalized. Probably even more. It is just a question of changing business models. And this process is already well under way."

Once again your selfishness is trying to dictate to others how they can market their own product just because YOU don't agree with it. You want a loss of freedoms? There you go, you just tramped all over MY freedoms to sell my product, the fruits of my hard labor, as I please. They belong to ME not to your lazy ass. If you want a copy of it you can damn well go write your own, but you cant can you? Lazy ****er.

The reality is that already hundreds of millions of people use p2p networks to make copies (what you call stealing). Unless your plan is to put the entire population of planet in jail, you are fighting the war that has already been lost.

Right and wrong, ethics and morality is *not* relative.

I don't care if everyone is doing it. It's *still* wrong.

If everyone starts raping 14 yr-olds, does that make it OK? Hell no.

Your entire argument is based on ethical relativity. Taking something the owner has not given you permission to take, even a copy, is not ethical. It's not a question of business models. It's a question of right vs wrong, and you, my friend, are wrong.

If you do not have permission to obtain it, obtaining it...is wrong.

Duh?

I never said it is "right" because hundreds of millions of people do it. Why do you keep attributing your own arguments to me? Is it so difficult to actually read what I say? You are doing it practically in every post. Some mythical "information wants to be free", then "you think you are entitled to get everything for free", now this... I never said any of those things.

Just re-read the statement about hundreds of millions of p2p users. I said it in response to your claim about ignoring the reality. Because IT IS the reality.

Whether it is right or wrong is a separate question. And on that separate question, I do believe these people have every right to do what they are doing. Because I don't agree with extension of the term property to numbers and I don't agree with extension of the term stealing to making copies. I think those concepts are fundamentally different, and while stealing is ethically and morally wrong, there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with making copies.

You may have different moral and ethical values and you can follow them yourself, but you will not succeed in forcing your values on other people. And in this case a lot of people have values very different from yours.

"I think those concepts are fundamentally different, and while stealing is ethically and morally wrong, there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with making copies."

And that is why you fail at being a human being. Ignore me all you want, you just prove me right.

It's sad, more and more these days so many people so gung ho to just toss people away in prisons for things like this. Yeah ok it's wrong, fine him or something. Did he molest a child, rape a woman, no he violated some terms in some corporate legal EULA. Nowadays that seems to be becoming worse then being cold blooded killer.

What ever happened to punishment fitting a crime, i guess that's about as obsolete as common sense. And everyone who points fingers and says "OOO BUT HE STOLE", well then lock yourselves up please for stealing the rest of our oxygen. Thank you.

I totally agree with you. I like the comparison you make with stealing oxygen. And 9/10 chances, Microsoft WILL follow up with a civil suit

Except oxygen could be said to be a public commodity, not a creative work or product by an individual or company. And I give it a 99 out of 100 chance MS won't follow up with a civil suit. How often do they go after someone that hasn't made boatloads of cash from selling pirated versions?

Stealing is stealing, I am sure your not suppose to steal no matter where you are from, unless of course you have no laws ( tribal area ).

Its just a matter of some areas of the world, do not feel digital software is a product, and thus you can steal it. News flash people stealing is against the law, its bad karma and "thou shal not steal" comes to mind.

Yes it is the Russian Goverment's fault for not doing something about the piracy before now, but if they want to be part of this digital world, they have to follow the "rules" and last time I checked being part of the digital world is a good thing.

The only reason you commit piracy is the fact, you don't care enough not to steal, these areas that claim windows is to expensive could be using Linux.

Lets face if, if Windows is expensive, then applications are expensive. Anyone who can given an excuse to piracy is not being truthful to themselfs.

Ok well, be sure to send your kids to a prison camp when you ever catch them sharing an mp3. Tough Love eh?

"Goverment's fault for not doing something about the piracy before now"
Ok this is repeating.. did u read Romania's president speach to Gates?

If you earn less than 100$ a month u hardly can buy hardware not software there INEQUALITY!!! between different economics.. microsoft set prices due to their(USA) living standards not to standards in poor countries (recently they realized it and selected trimmed down version of windows for such countries.. but limiting user in big way)

I grow in such country and if I would not use such pirated software I wouldn't get where iam now and maybe i would just endup on the street thinking how system sux and how to destroy everything.

Definition of stealing is in the LAW created for certain domain... your domain differs from others and thats hard part to understand...

Americans have probably not enough psychologist to uderstand that if they create ppl who has nothing to loose and have no motivation then probability of destructive behavior is much much higher... well deal with consequensies==IRAQ

then maybe they dont need computers, maybe they should instead pay for food....

One word:

Linux.

Cost is no excuse, there are free alternatives.

To everyone reading this Bill Gates and Microsoft would destroy you and your families lives in a hart beat given the chance to make a statement against piracy, human suffering doesn't matter to them. Just remember that when you buy that $250.00 Vista upgrade that you can't legally do a clean install with.

You're just wrong on so many counts I don't even know where to begin. I'd throw the facts that Bill Gates is one of the most generous contributors to humanitarian efforts ever, and that you can do a clean install of Vista on top of a prior installation of an earlier version of windows; but I am guessing those facts would be a little too complex for you to grasp.

"the facts that Bill Gates is one of the most generous contributors to humanitarian efforts ever"

That is by the way, an opinion. One which i respectfully disagree with. Billionaires are IMHO not generous, otherwise they would never be so rich. Nothing against him here, just saying he isn't the most generous guy in the world :/ Ok i lied, personally i think he's a rotten little twerp, but that again is my opinion.

if Bill Gates is the "most generous contributors to humanitarian efforts ever",
then can't he contribute a few licenses for that school.
Even if he gives out free licenses for all the schools and universities in the world. He would still be richest person, and in fact a much better humanitarian :)

"and that you can do a clean install of Vista on top of a prior installation of an earlier version of windows"

How to you figure its a clean install if you install on top of an eariler version??!!

maybe they deserve to have the money they earned through hard work. why should someone work hard, to just give it all away to people who wont or cant work hard? i mean some of it, yes, but most of it it moronic. he earned it, he deserves to be able to use it.

edit, ment that for joeshmoe's comment...

microsoft made it big because of good marketing, especially in the late 80's and early 90's when the public was being exposed to computers. from then to now, they have just been carried, largely, by momentum.

"to just give it all away to people who wont or cant work hard" im sorry to say, but this statement is just ignorant. the reason the russians dont have as much money isnt because they don't work, they just get screwed over by the exchange.

The vista installation (upgrade) moves the old install to: /windows.old

Delete /windows.old

Clean install.

if Bill Gates is the "most generous contributors to humanitarian efforts ever",
then can't he contribute a few licenses for that school.

He could. But he is under no obligation to do so.

You people act like the rich owe *you* something for their success.

You are entitled to nothing unless you earn it yourself. Got a problem with how Gates handles his wealth?

Too #!&$ bad. It's his money.

Marketing or better products...does it matter? It's still his money.

He doesn't *owe* anyone anything. It's one of the benefits of having money (wealth=lack of debt).

Go figure.

Yeah, as I don't know the exact value of his contributions, it is possible the he could be considered a miser if you count generous based on contributions by percentage of total net worth. But, as you hypothesised, billionaires don't get rich by being generous. Therefore, if they weren't as greedy as you suppose them all to be, they wouldn't have the money to donate, would they?
Why donate 90% of your wealth in one lump sum when you can donate 10% every year for many more than 9 years?

It seems obvious that a lot of the folks posting here are Socialist or Communist in their views of wealth and business. And for what reason? Can anyone show the rest of us the overwhelming innovative software technologies that came out of socialist or communist states? I don't count knock-offs like Windows Labor Camp Edition.

About 10% of MS staff and almost 20% of devellopers working in Silicon Valleyt are originating from ex-USSR

point?

So some old reds have seen the light. Big whoop.

Practicality comes with age, and idealism fades.

Quite possible that after this case Russian schools will turn their faces to linux distributions (ubuntu?).

I lived in Russia for more than 7 years ('till 99) and I saw a lot of cases of piracy there. All I can say is that A LOT of Russians don't even know the difference between a pirate software CD and a real one. It's because the majority of users never SAW a legal software disc! In a small Russian town you'll NEVER find a shop selling legal software. But at every street corner you'll find pirates selling anything, from software and music CDs to DVDs for a few bucks.

And it's not the people that are to blame. It's the government. Why? because during 17 years they were doing about that problem. They knew about it all the way, and now decided to show the world that they are fighting against piracy, by sentensing some guy to prison. Just because they want to enter the WTO!

It's a case of governmental hypocrisy.

Badly financed schools are not to blame, they're just doing what they can because they need software. And if a school becomes a pirate software user, it's IMO not entirely their fault...

A good thing for MS in Russia would be to launch an information campain about legal software and the risks of piracy, just as they did it in Central Europe a few years ago (it was a success, lots of companies bough legal licences after realising they were using illegal MS Windows)...

Just my 2 cents...

Wise words; Microsoft's PR should be sensitive.

Here's a "way out there" idea... Why not give Windows away to developing third-world countries? Why not just simply now give away XP Home to anyone? Something like XPN -- something like that could be a boon to the world economy; more than anything the Gates Foundation could do.

same in China.
the Chinese software makers reacted by creating dirt cheap software that's not too bad though.

well, not too... bad.

The Gates foundation is not created to help developing countries, but for a completely different purpose: to pay less taxes from MS revenue. They wouldn't even give away MS-DOS or Windows 3.11...

I do not find this dude particularly guilty. To be honest I did the same and I feel no remorse. I come from a country where the situation looked like this: an average salary per month: 120 $, Ms Windows - 700$ (yes, 700$! much more than in America). Microsoft greased the hands of state officials, so the programs of this company were allowed and certified to be used in K-12 education only. No computer rooms (because the country was underdeveloped) and if you do not use Windows you lose your job. What was the most funny (???) I worked in Japan for a time, where I made quite a lot of money (even in the States it would be quite a lot). I bought a computer and a boxed set of Windows 95 & Office (I think I paid well over 1k$). Of course Windows crashed after a week or so. I had to pay (yes, pay!!) for calling the helpline and I received no support from Microsoft. Their idea was roughly like that: your computer - your problem. Do it yourself or die. Pirates offered a CD copy of the operating system for around 4 dollars and their "support" was exactly the same.

So you couldn't figure out how to restart window on your own when it crashed after a week? So the pirates provided the same amount of support, did they pay the same development costs? Do you go by the idea that all development should be free, and the users should only have to pay for support? I'm sorry but I would really not like to have my paycheck rely on making software that requires support. I'd rather get paid for making software that requires minimal support, optimally no support at all.

So what. The average monthly salary was 1/6th the price of Windows, use Linux. I've made meager amounts of money at times in my life. Did that entitle me to get anything that cost more than 6 months of my pay for free?

Grazer, I am sure that you are from a country where Salary to comodities ratio is greater than 1. Meaning being, you|the country you are from, where people never had to pay 3 months of their hard earned salary to a computer OS.

You act and talk as though this world is a level field. It is not. Developers do cost money. Why do you think all IT companies are moving to China and India? Because of the cost savings.

I am from India, now working in the US. I have seen people with wages USD $10 per month to USD $4000 a month in India. Of course each ones affordability is different.

Microsoft cannot sell OS at the same rate in all countries. They need to subsidise and sell at different rates to different countries. That is the reason why Windows XP has a special version for Malaysia, India and Indonesia. Another reason being Linux is much more popular in those countries.

But as we have seen with the prices of MS OS or Apple's iPod, it is much more expensive outside US, which should be the other way around.

As to the subject, I think Russia should give the teacher a fair chance to defend himself and if he really did not know about piracy, send him to a course for piracy and put a fine on him, than sentencing him to jail or anything worse.

-GGR

Can't afford Windows?

For the responsible among us, the alternative is Linux. *NOT* piracy.

Yeah, whenever this economic factor arises, I put forth the same question and everyone overlooks it. If a person cannot afford something with several months pay, do you think they are entitled to get it for free?

I know and fully acknowledge the world is not a level playing field, did I claim otherwise? I merely pointed out there are affordable alternatives for those less fortunate.

As I have pointed out in other posts, customers lack of money does not change the cost to develop a product. In fact, ironically, as less can afford the product, those that can afford it must pay more due to economies of scale.

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda...

Well boo hoo... I'm certain that the Russian schools functioned just fine before microsoft software existed, I'm certain they functioned fine before the PC was even invinted.

The simple fact that the theif was poor or the underfunded changes nothing. The reason people use pirated software is because they don't have the money for the real stuff, so what. If you give it too the poor how can you justify charging anyone for it.

Send the guy to Siberian and maybe it will stop few other from stealing, let him off and you'll encourage thousands more to do the same.... Hey little billy in the gheto cant aford MS flight simulator - should he steal it instead? Little marry cant afford a fur coat - should she steal one?

firstly, we are in a technological age, therefore computers should be a part of school if you want your student to live successful lifes. Saying, "they functioned fine before the PC was even invinted"
and secondly, "Hey little billy in the gheto cant aford MS flight simulator - should he steal it instead? Little marry cant afford a fur coat - should she steal one?" in my opinion isn't a suitable metaphor. But here's one. imagine microsoft as a big rock garden. and i'm walking by and pick up a rock and take it home. ok i stole, are you goin to send me to siberia for it.

Well, for one, it isn't your rock and you didn't say what materials the rock was composed of...
But comparing windows to a fur coat or flight sim is more accurate than you think. If your argument for the necessity of an OS is to learn about computers, there are many flavors of Linux that work just fine, actually even better for those purposes. Windows, like OS X, provides the average user with a level of isolation from the hardware and lower level aspects. Most Linux distributions require the users to familiarize themselves with concepts of computing, such as drivers, compilation, and configuration. (Many windows users don't know how to change their color scheme).

the point i was making, was that it was one in millions of copies. if the guy's not using it to make profit for himself, who cares. now if he was running a business, selling the copy, and in anyway making money off it, then that would be wrong. now someones probly goin to say is it alright to steal a fur coat if u dont sell it. No. there is no way u can compare a computer program to a fur coat. a fur coat has substance. you can hold it in your hands. a program is a collection of math equations that can be copied and pasted with out any damage to either.

Not to split hairs or anything, but...
If using the illegal copies of the OS for his job allows him to perform better at his job, and due to that improvement he is bettered financially through raises or promotions, could he not be said to have made money off of it in some way?

While I agree that a physical item such as a fur coat cannot be compared exactly to a abstract one such as an operating system, the relation between a fur coat(I assume we are talking of the "luxury" kind) and a good winter coat is very comparable of that to a privately developed user friendly commercial operating system's relation to an open source intimidating-but-powerful free operating system.

While the theft, or illegal appropriation for those semantic nitpickers, of a physical item must by its very nature deprive its original owner of the ability to use and/or sell said item; the same done with an abstract item by a person without the ability to purchase such an item and without the intent or act of passing the item along for profit that would cut into the legal owner's own profits does not have the same affect; but it still cannot be said that everything is alright, as the originator of the abstract item has still had the fruits of their labor appropriated in some manner.

He will be sentenced to watching Apple-vs-PC-guy commercials for the rest of his life.

If so, at least he will be entertained and laughing...

Those commercials are soooooo true...

BTW, did you see Gate's reaction to the latest commercial? hahaha It lokks like it hit way to close to home... Hey thats what you get when you hype a product so much and it doesnt even deliver on the smallest of promises. boohoo

Those commercials are full of bull. The Crashantosh has more than its share of problems.

Those commercials are soooooo true...
Yeah, Macs have such a wider selection of software and peripherals it is not even funny; and apparently windows comes bundled with almost no software whatsoever. Why doesn't MS change the way power supplies attach to laptops it makes, and build webcams into its screens?

Microsoft doesn't make laptops or computers so they can't change the way power supplies attach or put webcams on the screens. And just to set the record straight, I owned a Sony TR Series laptop for a number of years with a built in web cam on the top edge. Apple apparently COPIED that from Sony with thier photo copy machine.

I also have a friend with the magnetic power cable on his Mac who contantly kicks it out without knowing about it and runs his battery down. He would prefer a more robust power connection.

I think you might need to check your sarcasm sensor, it seems to have gone offline.

Regardless of whether you like MS or Apple, the commercials should be sufficient torture for the Gulag.

This is gonna backfire on the Russians. MS will "show mercy" on one man (who wouldn't get more than a month in jail anyway) but will use this opportunity to say "now that you all knew about this case, every little farmer of you, and that you all know the law now (as if you didn't before), make sure this doesn't happen again, cuz next time we're gonna go full force".

I cannot possibly see anyone going to defend the NEXT RUSSIAN PIRATE, even if he's a high priest...

Did Gorbachev mention anything about himself sending letters to all schools, government entities, and businesses making sure they "get the memo" about MS hunting down pirates or was he just asking to renew his 15-min of fame before he dies?

And this will change piracy how? None. A moot point but an interesting read.

I agree, but it's actually "moot" not "mute" :)

Typo...sorry.

Hmm....I live in the country and have many hicks or rednecks living near me. They all seemingly know when they pirate software though. If hillbillies know they are doing wrong, this guy does too. I wonder who it will pan out...I am all for busting him though. :)

Ignorance of the law is not an exemption; this has been the case for millennia. That said, it would be nice to not punish a guy that badly. He probably thought they'd never come after some guy in the middle of Russia.

It could be used as a shining star of PR for MSFT if this is handled right. If handled wrong, they could look like a-holes to the world. Good luck, MS.

Different culture. Believe it or not, but not everyone is the same as Americans with the same access to information and the like. You're showing your Ugly American side.

That's not ugly american - he's being truthful, and not anti-restofworld. The EULAs are in Russian. It's hard to believe a headmaster was really so uninformed he had no idea. I wonder if their books were all photocopies...

Its still being an Ugly American to assume that the rest of the world is like them or that their laws are universal. Read the post above by molumen.

It isn't the court of Microsoft prosecuting the guy....Its the russian courts. The Ugly Russians are doing it to him because-- He broke international law. Now I don't believe this should be such a major fine or jail time unless he was reproducing it and selling for a profit. what Microsoft should do is give them computers - with legal copies on them. they have done it in India, Africa and other impoverished societies. Why not poor Russia? If he loaded Linux, no laws would have been broken. He made a human error.

The punishment is russias, not americas. so get your story right.

Wow - this was ripped right off of AP. Apparently Ed found CNN.com...

Does that make him evil?

They have been doing that alot, drumcat, and while I have no problems with it, when they do not show us or tell us that it was taken from AP or CNN or whatever, it can very well become a problem. If Ed isn't crediting the original author and instead taking credit himself, there is a major legal problem. I do not know the exact bounds of online articles and that sort of thing--maybe there's some hidden way they give credit to the AP for this that I just don't see here. Any thoughts/addendums?

Haha, you think all the articles BN post are originally written by people here?

I don't know if it makes him evil, nor even a plagiarist. I don't mind aggregation, or even a straight rip - as long as it's credited by something as simple as "with contributions from AP" or such. I'm sure BetaNews doesn't have money running out its ears, but still, credit doesn't cost anything. If they're ripping of AP, let AP deal with it. That said, it's only right to credit or link or something. Passing it off like they did the reporting sucks.

Mind you, Ed is just the poster, and he may add a line or link to the story. It's not a lack of attribution or plagiarism. It's just the way news is disseminated. If you look around the web, there are hundreds of news aggregator sites that all have the same story. It's true for TV; you just don't notice the comparisons.

True, but for the fact that every TV station has a media agreement. I'm really not saying that BN doesn't have the right to copy or anything like that, but this particular post seemed very, shall we say, "cut & paste". If BN wants to spin the news, more power to them. However, a blatant dupe should be credited.

Additionally, you will occasionally see TV reporters state that "XX is reporting that..." Again, no problem using it, but many of their other posts here on BN have taken the time and effort to do this kind of acknowledgment.

Call it what you will. Ever since Microsoft slid around IBM Warp and put the screws to IBM its been downhill. It took Microsoft years to get where the IBM Warp is or was. Was this truly beneficial for end users? How many people has Microsoft ran out of business to make sure they stayed ahead? Has that been beneficial? Microsoft was not built on some lofty cloud of purity!