Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Gorbachev Asks Gates to Show 'Pirate' Mercy

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

February 5, 2007, 3:04 PM

A plea to prevent a Russian teacher from being sentenced to detention in Siberian prison camps is coming from an unlikely source: former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The leader wrote an open letter to Microsoft founder Bill Gates asking him to show mercy and intercede on behalf of the accused man.

Gobachev claimed in the letter posted to the Web site of The Gorbachev Foundation Monday that Alexander Ponosov did not know he was committing a crime. Ponosov lives in a small village in the Ural Mountains, located in the western part of Russia.

"We have great respect for the work of Microsoft's programmers ... and are in no way casting doubt on the principle of punishment for intellectual property violations," he was translated by Reuters as saying.

"However, in this case we ask you to show mercy and withdraw your complaint against Alexander Ponosov," Gorbache continued, adding it would be looked upon favorably by Russians who use the company's software.

The actions against the Russian man likely have a lot to do with Russia's entrance into the World Trade Organization. The company has begun to crack down on piracy, and is expected to pass stricter legislation on the matter by June of this year.

Posnov is accused of loading computers in the school he runs with unlicensed copies of Microsoft software. However, he is defending himself by saying he had no knowledge that his actions were illegal.

Unfortunately, Microsoft says its hands are tied in the matter and it cannot get involved in the case.

"Mr. Ponosov's case is a criminal case and as such was initiated and investigated by the public prosecutor's office in Russia. Microsoft has no intention of making a civil claim against Mr. Ponosov. We are confident that the Russian courts will make a fair decision in Mr. Ponosov’s case after comprehensive analysis of all related details," a company spokesperson told BetaNews.

Add a Comment (161 Comments)

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.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Ural

edited Feb 19, 2007 - 8:01 PM

This is simply rediculous. The schools in Russia and everywhere in the world should use Open Source software, then their principles wouldn't be getting to prison for their dedication to their students.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 1:49 PM

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).

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 3:07 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 4:46 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:07 PM

> get your head out of the sand

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:27 PM

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

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 6:13 PM

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

over and out.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 7:36 PM

Oh goody, another prime example of your education level.

Score: 0

By rdawg

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 8:29 PM

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

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 7:59 PM

> 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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 1:12 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 1:20 PM

> 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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 4:59 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:12 PM

> 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".

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 12:23 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:16 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:35 PM

> 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".

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:43 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 3:35 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 1:46 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 2:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:03 PM

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?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 4:50 PM

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.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:15 PM

> 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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:25 PM

: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.

Score: 0

By Peregrine1970

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:22 PM

"~~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.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:49 PM

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 .... ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:33 PM

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

Simple as that.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 10:07 AM

~~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 !

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 2:16 PM

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.

Score: 0

By stevie b

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 9:20 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Gormless

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 9:45 AM

***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.

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 9:05 AM

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 !

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:19 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 9:20 AM

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.

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 7:59 AM

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

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 2:14 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:10 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 9:01 AM

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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:13 PM

"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 ?

Score: 0

By KSzostek

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 8:14 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:37 PM

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...

Score: 0

By SirDarius

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 3:10 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:08 PM

"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

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 3:19 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:26 PM

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

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 3:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:06 PM

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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:19 PM

did i say it was microsoft fault ?

please quote a sentence of mine that says so.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:56 PM

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

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:23 PM

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

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

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 1:27 PM

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

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 3:09 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:03 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 5:51 PM

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 ;)

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:59 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 3:21 PM

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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 3:52 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:07 PM

"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!

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:30 PM

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 ;)

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:47 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 5:49 PM

fair enough :)

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 11:37 AM

> 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*.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 12:31 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:44 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Feb 7, 2007 - 1:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 9:01 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 12:28 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 4:08 PM

> 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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Feb 8, 2007 - 6:45 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 11:46 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:53 PM

*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)

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 6:21 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 1:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 8:44 PM

> ... 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...".

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 12:29 PM

OMG...

...just go away.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 4:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 9, 2007 - 11:19 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 9, 2007 - 5:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 11, 2007 - 10:27 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 11, 2007 - 7:08 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 14, 2007 - 12:50 PM

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?

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 14, 2007 - 9:33 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 14, 2007 - 10:59 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 12, 2007 - 8:08 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 9, 2007 - 8:11 PM

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

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 8, 2007 - 6:31 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 9:19 PM

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?

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 2:59 PM

USA PATRIOT Act.

what's in a name?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 7, 2007 - 5:04 PM

lmao...

OK. You got me there.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 7:22 PM

*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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 11:49 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 4:37 PM

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

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 5:03 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 6:11 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Feb 6, 2007 - 7:12 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 6, 2007 - 10:54 AM

Bourgeoisdude claps excitedly for PC_Tool

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Feb 5, 2007 - 9:34 PM

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