Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
I am running XP Pro/SP2.
Andy wrote:
> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
>
> I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
> getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
>
> I am running XP Pro/SP2.
Not if you got the latest updates...
--
.~. Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.16
^ ^ 20:07:01 up 4:34 1 user load average: 1.00 1.04 1.01
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
Andy wrote:
> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
Yes, if the files are fucked up with DRM and you didn't properly remove
at least the DRM client components.
This will lead to two big problems:
1. A license aquistion dialogue will be opened, rendering HTML with the
IE engine. Hurray, free choice to use 50+ unpatched IE vulnerabilities.
2. A slient license aquistion might take place. This will install a
license for this file, including all relevant DRM mechanisms. One is
revokation. As an evil guy I would say "revoke after 1 second, delete
the license, the license's name is C:\mp3z\*.mp3".
There's also a possibility to include JavaScript code within a normal
WMV file, but actually running it is disabled by default.
> I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
> getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
See above, this is usually a correct assumption.
BTW, would you please set a fup2 next time?
From: "Andy"
| Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
| I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
| getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
| I am running XP Pro/SP2.
If the Media Player is properly patched -- No.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
also protect your soul from explicit content.
In comp.security.misc Ludovic Joly
> > Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
> There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
> security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
> also protect your soul from explicit content.
*ROTFL*
Yes, most GIFs¹ are not JPEGs any more, but WMV, MOV and MPG ;-)
Yours,
VB.
¹ Tvey Va Svyr
--
At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain
From: "Ludovic Joly"
|
>> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
|
| There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
| security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
| also protect your soul from explicit content.
That's funny :-)
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Volker Birk wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Ludovic Joly
>>> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
>> There is no danger if you open the files with Notepad. This simple
>> security procedure will defeat exploits targeting media players, and
>> also protect your soul from explicit content.
>=20
> *ROTFL*
>=20
> Yes, most GIFs=B9 are not JPEGs any more, but WMV, MOV and MPG ;-)
Ever tried opening a 700 MB MPG file in Notepad? You really wanna go
home and think about using VirtualDub with the ASCIImovie plugin in
before...
Man-wai Chang
> Andy wrote:
> > Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
> >
> > I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
> > getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
> >
> > I am running XP Pro/SP2.
>
> Not if you got the latest updates...
Note "got", not "*think* you got"! Lately *Automatic* Updates (the
automatic/icon/popup version) has been notorious in being days and even
weeks late compared to *Windows* Update (the browser version) [1], so
check with *Windows* Update that you have all the latest stuff.
[1] The Microsoft servers give priority to Windows Update over Automatic
Updates. Often Automatic Updates can *say* that there are updates
available for your computer, but not actually (fully) *download*, let
alone *install*, them until days/weeks later. For the gory details, see
the logs (in my case, XP Pro SP2, "Windows Update.log" and
"WindowsUpdate.log" (in C:\WINDOWS), especially the latter),
specifically the "DnldMgr * Update is not allowed to download due to
regulation." messages.
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Leythos
>In article
>> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
>>
>> I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
>> getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
>>
>> I am running XP Pro/SP2.
>Opening any files you open "Can" present a danger, but the scope of the
>threat can be limited.
>Windows media player has had several exploits, as long as you patch your
>system with all security updates, you will be as safe as possible at
>that time - notice I didn't say you would be safe, I said safe AS
>POSSIBLE.
YOu will be safer not opening them. So the question was as to the
comparative safety. There have been so many exploits, and the time between
the exploit being used and patched is some number of days ( lets say 10)
Thus, your safety if you patch is 10 days out of 365/Number of exploits per
year. Even with only one exploit a year, relying on patching gives you a
safety of only 3%-- ie you have a 3% chance of being hit if someone attacks
you once a year. If they attack you 30 times a year with the latest
exploit they have about 100% chance of getting in. Does that sound safe?o
Now if you never do anything that could trigger the exploit you will not be
broken into.
Ie, relying on patching to keep you safe is a rediculously insecure way of
behaving.
It is certainly necessary ( since y ou can raise those odds to 100% per
attempt if you never patch, and 3% is better than 100%) but should not even
be your 10th line of defence.
From: "Unruh"
|
| YOu will be safer not opening them. So the question was as to the
| comparative safety. There have been so many exploits, and the time between
| the exploit being used and patched is some number of days ( lets say 10)
| Thus, your safety if you patch is 10 days out of 365/Number of exploits per
| year. Even with only one exploit a year, relying on patching gives you a
| safety of only 3%-- ie you have a 3% chance of being hit if someone attacks
| you once a year. If they attack you 30 times a year with the latest
| exploit they have about 100% chance of getting in. Does that sound safe?o
| Now if you never do anything that could trigger the exploit you will not be
| broken into.
| Ie, relying on patching to keep you safe is a rediculously insecure way of
| behaving.
| It is certainly necessary ( since y ou can raise those odds to 100% per
| attempt if you never patch, and 3% is better than 100%) but should not even
| be your 10th line of defence.
|
Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.
Live in fear, die in despair.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
"David H. Lipman"
> From: "Andy"
>
> | Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
>
> | I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites or
> | getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
>
> | I am running XP Pro/SP2.
>
> If the Media Player is properly patched -- No.
Some media filetypes (with mediaplayer) allow the firing up of IE and the
included URL will be visited. If a "bad" site wants visitors, then populating
p2p with "bad" mediafiles is an option for them.
My advice is to put Windows Media Trojan in the trash bin - and I don't
care what version or how updated Microsoft says it is. Microsoft somehow
decided to include this stupid feature though it is configurable in new versions
I've heard.
On 11 May 2006, Sebastian Gottschalk
> Andy wrote:
>> Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
>
> Yes, if the files are fucked up with DRM and you didn't properly
> remove at least the DRM client components.
>
> This will lead to two big problems:
>
> 1. A license aquistion dialogue will be opened, rendering HTML with
> the IE engine. Hurray, free choice to use 50+ unpatched IE
> vulnerabilities.
>
> 2. A slient license aquistion might take place. This will install a
> license for this file, including all relevant DRM mechanisms. One
> is revokation. As an evil guy I would say "revoke after 1 second,
> delete the license, the license's name is C:\mp3z\*.mp3".
>
>
> There's also a possibility to include JavaScript code within a
> normal WMV file, but actually running it is disabled by default.
Yes this is what I end to see. I execute a 1MB WMV file and the next
thing I know WMP has alunched as asks about being allowed to go off and
get some authorisation. Hmmm. I never let it.
If I run some other media player like Media Player Classic (by Gabest)
or Irfanview or Zoom then I just get an error message at this point
saying the player can't proceed.
>> I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites
>> or getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
>
> See above, this is usually a correct assumption.
>
>
> BTW, would you please set a fup2 next time?
Doesn't Thunderbird offer a suitable option for x-post killing?
I find FollowUp To never works well in the end.
On 11 May 2006, David H. Lipman
> From: "Unruh"
>
>
>|
>| YOu will be safer not opening them. So the question was as to the
>| comparative safety. There have been so many exploits, and the time
>| between the exploit being used and patched is some number of days
>| ( lets say 10) Thus, your safety if you patch is 10 days out of
>| 365/Number of exploits per year. Even with only one exploit a
>| year, relying on patching gives you a safety of only 3%-- ie you
>| have a 3% chance of being hit if someone attacks you once a year.
>| If they attack you 30 times a year with the latest exploit they
>| have about 100% chance of getting in. Does that sound safe?o Now
>| if you never do anything that could trigger the exploit you will
>| not be broken into.
>| Ie, relying on patching to keep you safe is a rediculously
>| insecure way of behaving.
>| It is certainly necessary ( since y ou can raise those odds to
>| 100% per attempt if you never patch, and 3% is better than 100%)
>| but should not even be your 10th line of defence.
>|
>
> Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.
>
> Live in fear, die in despair.
>
The vid is probably no good anyway.
From: "Zak"
>> Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.
>>
>> Live in fear, die in despair.
>>
| The vid is probably no good anyway.
That's a broad statement. What WMV ? I have sen some great porno shorts in WMV format.
:-)
I also work for a NJ, USA, music promoter and have viewed some great WMVs dealing with short
music videos and promos.
WMV is not a file format to fear.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
From: "edgewalker"
..
|
| Some media filetypes (with mediaplayer) allow the firing up of IE and the
| included URL will be visited. If a "bad" site wants visitors, then populating
| p2p with "bad" mediafiles is an option for them.
|
| My advice is to put Windows Media Trojan in the trash bin - and I don't
| care what version or how updated Microsoft says it is. Microsoft somehow
| decided to include this stupid feature though it is configurable in new versions
| I've heard.
|
Notice I said "the Media Player" not specifically a Microsoft product/utility :-)
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Andy wrote:
> Yes this is what I end to see. I execute a 1MB WMV file and the next
> thing I know WMP has alunched as asks about being allowed to go off and
> get some authorisation. Hmmm. I never let it.
Minding you, any DRM software is something you clearly don't want on
your computer.
> If I run some other media player like Media Player Classic (by Gabest)
> or Irfanview or Zoom then I just get an error message at this point
> saying the player can't proceed.
When removing at least the DRM client components, WMP tells the same.
"David H. Lipman"
> From: "edgewalker"
>
> .
> |
> | Some media filetypes (with mediaplayer) allow the firing up of IE and the
> | included URL will be visited. If a "bad" site wants visitors, then populating
> | p2p with "bad" mediafiles is an option for them.
> |
> | My advice is to put Windows Media Trojan in the trash bin - and I don't
> | care what version or how updated Microsoft says it is. Microsoft somehow
> | decided to include this stupid feature though it is configurable in new versions
> | I've heard.
> |
>
> Notice I said "the Media Player" not specifically a Microsoft product/utility :-)
....and a good thing you did :))
Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :)) Subjective as the
definition is, most people wouldn't want this feature if they knew about it.
edgewalker wrote:
> Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
> because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
the implementation proofs it.
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
> edgewalker wrote:
>
> > Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
> > because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
>
> In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
> the implementation proofs it.
DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil. The problem I stated with
WMP is probably a deal Billy struck with the foistware crowd. Sorta makes
you rethink how all those IE exploits remain "unpatched". WMP makes a sys
call to the foistware handler i.e. IE. :))
edgewalker wrote:
>>> Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
>>> because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
>> In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
>> the implementation proofs it.
>
> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
No, as it's not necessary at all.
> Sorta makes you rethink how all those IE exploits remain "unpatched".
> WMP makes a sys call to the foistware handler i.e. IE. :))
This has been fixed in MSDRM v3 Build 3802 (KB891122) and has never been
any issue to systems where the DRM client component is removed.
edgewalker wrote:
> "Sebastian Gottschalk"
>> edgewalker wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
>>> because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
>> In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
>> the implementation proofs it.
>
> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer wrote:
> ??? try again... digital rights malware
Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang. The correct
term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some people claim
it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is scientifically and
even obviously wrong. ;-D
> is not a necessary evil... it's a desperate power-grab by corrupt
> corporations...
This is not about power, it's about money. There's no chance to keep up
using a trojan horse to use a customers computer against him without any
agreement (that he didn't give). And even then it would be illegal in
most countries whichs copyright laws require enforceability of fair use
even against the right holder's non-consent.
Sebastian Gottschalk
@news.dfncis.de:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> ??? try again... digital rights malware
>
> Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang. The correct
> term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some people claim
> it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is scientifically and
> even obviously wrong. ;-D
Sorry, you don't get to invent your own terminology and then foist it on
everyone else. The "r" in DRM is near-universally considered to be
"rights." As just one of the multitude of sources let me refer you to the
Wikipedia:
Digital Rights Management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Note that "restrictions" is not even mentioned as an alternate for the "R"
in DRM. In fact, on google, "digital rights nmanagement" returns over 18
million hits; "digital restrictions manaegement" less than 1% as many!
>> is not a necessary evil... it's a desperate power-grab by corrupt
>> corporations...
>
> This is not about power, it's about money. There's no chance to keep up
> using a trojan horse to use a customers computer against him without any
> agreement (that he didn't give). And even then it would be illegal in
> most countries whichs copyright laws require enforceability of fair use
> even against the right holder's non-consent.
You are badly out of touch. There are any number of legal and technical
ploys being used by large corporations to arrogate both power and money to
themselves regarding digital (and other) media. Does DMCA ring a bell? How
about "trusted computing" (and the numerous other names it has gone by)?
Regards,
nemo_outis wrote:
>>> ??? try again... digital rights malware
>> Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang. The correct
>> term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some people claim
>> it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is scientifically and
>> even obviously wrong. ;-D
>
> Sorry, you don't get to invent your own terminology and then foist it on
> everyone else. The "r" in DRM is near-universally considered to be
> "rights."
I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal... and I know that
being naive, at least to a certain point, is not wrong.
However, when talking about DRM, you have to take the point that this is
about restrictions and not about rights.
> You are badly out of touch. There are any number of legal and technical
> ploys being used by large corporations to arrogate both power and money to
> themselves regarding digital (and other) media. Does DMCA ring a bell?
DCMA doesn't make DRM legal.
> How about "trusted computing" (and the numerous other names it has gone by)?
Enforcing DRM through technical measures is illegal as well.
Sebastian Gottschalk
>I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal... and I know that
>being naive, at least to a certain point, is not wrong.
What kind of strange form is "decal"? (decem -> decimal is perfectly
fine; of course, it should have been sedecimal as "hexa" is greek and
"decem" latin)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
Sebastian Gottschalk
news:4cre9fF168pgtU1@news.dfncis.de:
> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>>>> ??? try again... digital rights malware
>>> Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang. The
>>> correct term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some
>>> people claim it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is
>>> scientifically and even obviously wrong. ;-D
>>
>> Sorry, you don't get to invent your own terminology and then foist it
>> on everyone else. The "r" in DRM is near-universally considered to
>> be "rights."
>
> I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal... and I know that
> being naive, at least to a certain point, is not wrong.
>
> However, when talking about DRM, you have to take the point that this
> is about restrictions and not about rights.
DRM is yet another appropriation, another arrogation unto itself, by big
business. And, to the shame of supposedly democratic institutions, it
has been done under colour of right by manipulating the law and
lawmakers.
And, true, it does effectively act as a restriction on the general public
and to the detriment not only of the public but of researchers, scholars,
and the very authors of the content it allegedly protects.
But the mechanism for achieving this is framed in terms of rights, or
more accurately, as with all supposed "intellectual property" (how I hate
that misleading and duplicitous term!), in terms of "government-granted
privileges and monopolies."
>> You are badly out of touch. There are any number of legal and
>> technical ploys being used by large corporations to arrogate both
>> power and money to themselves regarding digital (and other) media.
>> Does DMCA ring a bell?
>
> DCMA doesn't make DRM legal.
DCMA and DRM (I speak here particularly of the US but the situation
generalizes broadly) are both unconscionable abuses and explotations - of
the public, of the authors, of the researchers, of all except the narrow
corporate base for whom this robbery and usurpation was crafted by
corrupt politicians. However, the form chosen as the veil, the fig leaf,
to cover this naked theft is in the form of (and I do mean in form only)
duly-passed laws.
>> How about "trusted computing" (and the numerous other names it has
>> gone by)?
>
> Enforcing DRM through technical measures is illegal as well.
Once again, the form chosen to veil the usurpation is duly-passed laws.
Regards,
PS I consider all such intellectual property laws voidable and void at
my sole and unfettered discretion since they are contrary to (real, not
institutionalized) public policy as being unconscionable and
exploitative.
Casper H.S. Dik
$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:
> Sebastian Gottschalk
>
>>I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal... and I know that
>>being naive, at least to a certain point, is not wrong.
>
> What kind of strange form is "decal"? (decem -> decimal is perfectly
> fine; of course, it should have been sedecimal as "hexa" is greek and
> "decem" latin)
>
> Casper
All mixes of Latin and Greek are mongel horrors. I don't drive an
automobile, I drive an autokineton :-)
And don't get me started on "homosexual" or "television."
Regards,
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk
>
>> I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal... and I know that
>> being naive, at least to a certain point, is not wrong.
>
> What kind of strange form is "decal"?
Sorry, didn't know if "deka" (latin prefix for 'ten') is adapted in
English.
> (decem -> decimal is perfectly
> fine; of course, it should have been sedecimal as "hexa" is greek and
> "decem" latin)
still "deci" is 1/10 and not 10
In comp.security.misc Sebastian Gottschalk
> I know, just like hexadecimal instead of hexadecal...
You mean Sedecimal? ;-) I really don't understand, why not correct Latin
or correkt Greek...
Yours,
VB.
--
At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain
Man-wai Chang
> Andy wrote:
> > Is there a danger opening WMV files in XP?
> > I sem to recall something about being taken to dangerous web sites
> > or getting unwanted code on my system or something like that.
> > I am running XP Pro/SP2.
>
> Not if you got the latest updates...
Generally, this is enough for me, but if the WMV file were of dubious
or unkonwn origin, and given that we have a few security newsgroups
listed here, I feel obliged to add a caveat to this thought: "Not if
you have the latest updates...and if you're willing to assume that
there is not an undisclosed vulnerability in Windows Media Player in
existence."
And that's one heck of an assumption to make, especially considering
we're talking about a closed source piece of media software, deployed
on millions of desktops, and would be a ripe target of attack for
black hats that would like to pocket some 0day exploit code.
So, I would say, "Yes, there is danger in opening WMV files in XP,
even if you have all the latest patches from Microsoft." In a more
constructive sense, though, I'll add that there is less danger in
using a less widely deployed, fully updated media player to open
untrusted WMV content. A popular, but not too popular, open source
alternative to try would be VLC, a cross platform media player:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Todd H. wrote:
> In a more constructive sense, though, I'll add that there is less
> danger in using a less widely deployed, fully updated media player to
> open untrusted WMV content. A popular, but not too popular, open
> source alternative to try would be VLC, a cross platform media
> player: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
VLC under Windows just uses the Windows Media components for playback. I
don't know of any Win32 port of Libvc1.
Sebastian Gottschalk
> Todd H. wrote:
> > In a more constructive sense, though, I'll add that there is less
> > danger in using a less widely deployed, fully updated media player to
> > open untrusted WMV content. A popular, but not too popular, open
> > source alternative to try would be VLC, a cross platform media
> > player: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
>
> VLC under Windows just uses the Windows Media components for playback. I
> don't know of any Win32 port of Libvc1.
Aye caramba. Good databpoint Sebastian.
Brings up an interesting side discussion: is there another open
source media player that runs under windows that supports WMV that
does not use these components?
I suppose VMWare Player and a linux instance of choice with VLC on it
might be another alternative.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Todd H. wrote:
>> VLC under Windows just uses the Windows Media components for playback. I
>> don't know of any Win32 port of Libvc1.
>
> Aye caramba. Good databpoint Sebastian.
>
> Brings up an interesting side discussion: is there another open
> source media player that runs under windows that supports WMV that
> does not use these components?
Sadly: no.
> I suppose VMWare Player and a linux instance of choice with VLC on it
> might be another alternative.
The VLC testing toolkit contains a pretty slim command line decoder that
uses the VC-1 reference decoder. This allows transcoding the WMV to a
sane format, which is something that should be done anyway. :-)
Sebastian Gottschalk
> Todd H. wrote:
>
> >> VLC under Windows just uses the Windows Media components for playback. I
> >> don't know of any Win32 port of Libvc1.
> >
> > Aye caramba. Good databpoint Sebastian.
> >
> > Brings up an interesting side discussion: is there another open
> > source media player that runs under windows that supports WMV that
> > does not use these components?
>
> Sadly: no.
>
> > I suppose VMWare Player and a linux instance of choice with VLC on it
> > might be another alternative.
>
> The VLC testing toolkit contains a pretty slim command line decoder that
> uses the VC-1 reference decoder. This allows transcoding the WMV to a
> sane format, which is something that should be done anyway. :-)
Sebastian,
Thanks for the info--your informed contributions are much
appreciated.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
"kurt wismer"
> edgewalker wrote:
> > "Sebastian Gottschalk"
> >> edgewalker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
> >>> because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
> >> In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
> >> the implementation proofs it.
> >
> > DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
>
> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
software.
It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
edgewalker wrote:
>>> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
>> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
>> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
>
> Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
> wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
> became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
> theft.
Copyright violation is no theft and not even partitially comparable to
theft. Actually you should be thankful to our society that copyright
gives your some exclusive time-limited monopoly on your works.
Beside that, DRM "protection" doesn't work and you know that. This is
really just to rip off customers.
> Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
> software.
Right, open source continously lifts the illusion of a market for
software. :-) And this is good: markets that aren't needed any more
should cease.
But well, what about developing software in first place? Or support
subscriptions? What's up with technical applications?
> It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
Then you don't understand copyright.
"edgewalker"
>"kurt wismer"
>> edgewalker wrote:
>> > "Sebastian Gottschalk"
>> >> edgewalker wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Anyway - if "the media player" happens to be a MS product, heed my warning
>> >>> because even fully patched it is a trojan by most definitions :))
>> >> In case of WMP: The MSDRM component is a trojan horse by definition, and
>> >> the implementation proofs it.
>> >
>> > DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
>>
>> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
>> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
>Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
>wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
Ah yes, the poor software industry Struggling along with returns on
investment in the low single digit range, working for years and years and
barely being able to buy a car.
>became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
>theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
>software.
Yes, I know. I feel so sorry for them.
>It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> ??? try again... digital rights malware
>
> Well, let's stay serious by not fuzzing around with slang.
i'm dead serious about classifying it as malware
(http://anti-virus-rants.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-is-drm.ht ml)...
> The correct
> term is "Digital Restrictions Management", even though some people claim
> it to be "Rights" instead of restriction, which is scientifically and
> even obviously wrong. ;-D
it is a fairly well known practice to *not* use the name that the
malware creators want...
>> is not a necessary evil... it's a desperate power-grab by corrupt
>> corporations...
>
> This is not about power, it's about money.
since when are people who take on the role of enforcer only interested
in money...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
edgewalker wrote:
> "kurt wismer"
>> edgewalker wrote:
[snip]
>>> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
>> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
>> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
>
> Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
> wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
> became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
> theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
> software.
>
> It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
lots of people (programmers included) get paid without the involvement
of drm...
qed...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
"kurt wismer"
> edgewalker wrote:
> > "kurt wismer"
> >> edgewalker wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
> >> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
> >> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
> >
> > Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
> > wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
> > became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
> > theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
> > software.
> >
> > It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
>
> lots of people (programmers included) get paid without the involvement
> of drm...
Nonetheless, it is here to stay - and I suppose it started because it was felt to
be necessary (a necessary evil). You can call it malware (a trojan) because
people don't read EULA's - and the same can be said for any program the
same users fail to RTFM about if you want to.
....it seems a strange way to define things though ... it is a trojan because the
user believes it doesn't do something it clearly documents that it does do
but the user was too lazy to RTFM( orEULA) that states so.
I think all programs are screensavers, so any program that does something
other than what I expect from a screensaver is a trojan by definition because
I am too lazy to read whatever documentation came with it? Yes, I realize
"trojan" is subjective in nature, and your interpretation is just as valid as any
other. Any program named with an SCR extension (even interpretive script)
may make me believe it is a screensaver and fits the definition of trojan for
at least this indivudual - but not for the rest of the world.
edgewalker wrote:
> Nonetheless, it is here to stay
No, it is here to die.
> and I suppose it started because it was felt to be necessary (a
> necessary evil).
Definitely not.
> You can call it malware (a trojan) because people don't read EULA's
It's malware because it works against the user in command of a third
party. It's a trojan horse by definition, and the current implementation
exhibit this behaviour even more.
> Yes, I realize "trojan" is subjective in nature, and your
> interpretation is just as valid as any other.
Copyright law in most countries grants you the exclusive right to make a
copy for private use even against the consent of the rights holder, and
it forbids the latter one to technically enforce the contrary.
So by law the main application of DRM is already illegal. And law
declares that its purpose is strictly against the user's interests, even
when he agreed to the EULA and/or other policies - so it's a trojan
horse. No subjective interpretation involved.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> However, when talking about DRM, you have to take the point that this is
> about restrictions and not about rights.
Maybe so, but it's Digital Rights management. Rights going for the
publisher, not you the end user. :)
> DCMA doesn't make DRM legal.
Oh, but it does. I'd suggest you read it, and read it again.
> > How about "trusted computing" (and the numerous other names it has gone by)?
>
> Enforcing DRM through technical measures is illegal as well.
Wrong again. DRM is totally withen the bounds of the DMCA, YOU however
removing it, is illegal. Your circumventing "protection" at that point.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
author of BugHunter
http://bughunter.atspace.org
edgewalker wrote:
> Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
> wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
> became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
> theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
> software.
I'm sorry. But how do you define stolen? Software can't be stolen.
Copied, sure, but stolen would imply I deprived the original person in
possession of access to it. Making a copy does not do this...
> It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
It's a well known fact dating well before the 90s, into the early-mid
80s that copy protection doesn't serve the public interest.. Nothing
has changed since then.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
author of BugHunter
http://bughunter.atspace.org
David H. Lipman wrote:
> Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.
So, why not just disable wmv scripting? That cures the problem. Scripts
shouldn't be inside media files. Even better, dump wmv; go with
xvid/divx avi files instead. Nicer, better graphics, no drm. :)
Er, xvid, no drm.. Divx is apparently doing the drm thing now... sigh
> Live in fear, die in despair.
Live free or die tryin! :)
--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>> However, when talking about DRM, you have to take the point that
>> this is about restrictions and not about rights.
>
> Maybe so, but it's Digital Rights management. Rights going for the
> publisher, not you the end user. :)
The publisher doesn't have the right to control the playback behaviour
of my computer.
>> DCMA doesn't make DRM legal.
>
> Oh, but it does. I'd suggest you read it, and read it again.
I read it again. There is no part about legalizing malicious software
and/or computer systems. There is no part about making copyright
infringement of the publisher legal.
>>> How about "trusted computing" (and the numerous other names it
>>> has gone by)?
>> Enforcing DRM through technical measures is illegal as well.
>
> Wrong again. DRM is totally withen the bounds of the DMCA,
Doesn't matter, it's illegal due to copyright and computer criminal laws.
> YOU however removing it, is illegal. Your circumventing "protection"
> at that point.
DRM is no protection and can't be, as it's broken by design. Record
every change, trace back where the key lies, decrypt the content to a
file, done. Just because the DRM itself doesn't do this simple action
doesn't mean that it's disallowed.
Dustin Cook wrote:
>> Yeah but if you don't open the WMV, you don't see the video.
>
> So, why not just disable wmv scripting? That cures the problem.
It's disabled by default.
I guess his concerns are much more about buffer overflows and similar
errors in the naturally very complex and purely performance-oriented
video decoder. Heck, most people don't even get a simple image decoder
right. :-) :-(
> Scripts shouldn't be inside media files. Even better, dump wmv; go with
> xvid/divx avi files instead. Nicer, better graphics, no drm. :)
Better decodeable. Ever tried playing a WMV under Linux without being
able the legally use the Win32 Codecs? You've only got VLC with LibVC1,
which you cannot build on your own since SMPTE shut down public access
to the VC-1 reference decoder.
And not even VLC on Windows gets it right when utilizing the integrated
Windows Media decoder libraries from Windows/WMP.
> Er, xvid, no drm.. Divx is apparently doing the drm thing now... sigh
At least it's inside the MPEG4 standard, so you clearly differ between
"protected" and clean content without resorting to some proprietary
Win32-only library.
>> Live in fear, die in despair.
>
> Live free or die tryin! :)
You're strange. In my experience death only happens to the other people,
not me.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> It's disabled by default.
Good point. I make it a habit of not messing with wmv files, I'm a fan
of the open mp3 and xvid codecs... ehm.. :)
> I guess his concerns are much more about buffer overflows and similar
> errors in the naturally very complex and purely performance-oriented
> video decoder. Heck, most people don't even get a simple image decoder
> right. :-) :-(
A pure POS you mean. WMV sucks on so many levels...
> Better decodeable. Ever tried playing a WMV under Linux without being
> able the legally use the Win32 Codecs? You've only got VLC with LibVC1,
> which you cannot build on your own since SMPTE shut down public access
> to the VC-1 reference decoder.
> And not even VLC on Windows gets it right when utilizing the integrated
> Windows Media decoder libraries from Windows/WMP.
I don't play with linux much either. To me, it's a glorified multi user
DOS environment, like desqview, without the icons... :)
> At least it's inside the MPEG4 standard, so you clearly differ between
> "protected" and clean content without resorting to some proprietary
> Win32-only library.
True true...
> You're strange. In my experience death only happens to the other people,
> not me.
Yea, people on av and vx sides have been saying that for years.... Ah
well.
--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> The publisher doesn't have the right to control the playback behaviour
> of my computer.
Your computer, no. His file content, yes. If you believe the BS they
spew, anyhow. I'm not a follower of that myself, but it doesn't change
anything.
> I read it again. There is no part about legalizing malicious software
> and/or computer systems. There is no part about making copyright
> infringement of the publisher legal.
DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
Think Sony and the rootkit fiasco (I know it's not really a rootkit,
I'm just dumbing it down for the sake of discussion, please don't flame
me for improperly labeling it).
> > Wrong again. DRM is totally withen the bounds of the DMCA,
>
> Doesn't matter, it's illegal due to copyright and computer criminal laws.
I wish that was the case. In the United States, it's legal, and
circumventing it (even if it's as simple as using a magic marker) is
illegal. What can I say? I live in a country that's got a fine money
bought government. Reverse engineering is illegal in the states. If
somebody wanted to make a big issue of it, they could potentially sue
me for developing BugHunter, as I'm reverse engineering their spyware
apps to determine if they are spyware, and to develop a signature.
Nobody wants to play that out in court tho. I don't see the makers of
coolwebsearch trying to sue me for it. :)
> DRM is no protection and can't be, as it's broken by design. Record
> every change, trace back where the key lies, decrypt the content to a
> file, done. Just because the DRM itself doesn't do this simple action
> doesn't mean that it's disallowed.
I agree with you that it isn't protection and it's broken by it's very
design. However, I do not agree that it's legal in the slightest bit to
disable it. In fact, the DMCA sadly says in plain english (surprise
surprise) that it's illegal to bypass or circumvent protection in any
way shape or form. Adobe's pdf writer once had "encryption" a simple
xor loop they bragged would keep your ebooks safe. Well, lo and behold,
somebody figured out the sick joke they called encryption and wrote
about it. Adobe made life hard for that individual.
Various printer manufacturers are now embedding chips into their
cartridges. The chip ensures you can't use a clone. And you can't
legally copy the contents of the chip, it's been tried and they lose so
far every time. Dirty trick? Yes! Legal? Yes :(
Even garage door companies are suing each other. Make a universal
remote for one, get sued...
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>
>> The publisher doesn't have the right to control the playback behaviour
>> of my computer.
>
> Your computer, no. His file content, yes.
The DRM license and configuration files, where exactly the data for
behaviour control are located, are not copyright-protected and he has no
right to modify them.
If thye located those data within the files where the copyrighted
content lies (if one can actually call it content when there's no
defined semantics), the system would, well, even more insecure, but at
least lawful.
> If you believe the BS they spew, anyhow.
:-)
>> I read it again. There is no part about legalizing malicious software
>> and/or computer systems. There is no part about making copyright
>> infringement of the publisher legal.
>
> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious,
It is, by design. It limits a computers ability to process data against
the user's consent.
>>> Wrong again. DRM is totally withen the bounds of the DMCA,
>> Doesn't matter, it's illegal due to copyright and computer criminal laws.
>
> I wish that was the case. In the United States, it's legal,
Any proof? In most cases it's just someone didn't try to sue the
companies yet.
> Adobe's pdf writer once had "encryption" a simple
> xor loop they bragged would keep your ebooks safe. Well, lo and behold,
> somebody figured out the sick joke they called encryption and wrote
> about it.
Eh, no. The protection was based on some flags that didn't even have any
relation to the key+encryption. He simple ignored/reset those bits and
it was gone. This is no protection, this is a simple attribution saying
"please don't copy me" where you're free to ignore it.
Well, the program also had the ability to save the decrypted content,
but who cares?
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Any proof? In most cases it's just someone didn't try to sue the
> companies yet.
They've tried. People have lost..
> Eh, no. The protection was based on some flags that didn't even have any
> relation to the key+encryption. He simple ignored/reset those bits and
> it was gone. This is no protection, this is a simple attribution saying
> "please don't copy me" where you're free to ignore it.
I think we're talking about two different Adobe screwups. I was
speaking of the xor loop encryption they once used on protected ebooks.
It really was an xor loop, not a few simple bits to be turned off.
> Well, the program also had the ability to save the decrypted content,
> but who cares?
Which program?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>
>> Any proof? In most cases it's just someone didn't try to sue the
>> companies yet.
>
> They've tried. People have lost..
And they sued them for computer crime, copyright infringement and fraud?
>> Well, the program also had the ability to save the decrypted content,
>> but who cares?
>
> Which program?
Advanced PDF Password Recovery (Pro), the tool we're talking about
Dustin Cook wrote:
[snip]
> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
digital rights malware has always been about one party controlling what
another party can do with data on their own computer...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
edgewalker wrote:
> "kurt wismer"
>> edgewalker wrote:
>>> "kurt wismer"
>>>> edgewalker wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> DRM has unfortunately become a necessary evil.
>>>> ??? try again... digital rights malware is not a necessary evil... it's
>>>> a desperate power-grab by corrupt corporations...
>>> Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
>>> wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
>>> became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
>>> theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
>>> software.
>>>
>>> It is as necessary as the getting paid is.
>> lots of people (programmers included) get paid without the involvement
>> of drm...
>
> Nonetheless, it is here to stay - and I suppose it started because it was felt to
> be necessary (a necessary evil). You can call it malware (a trojan) because
> people don't read EULA's - and the same can be said for any program the
> same users fail to RTFM about if you want to.
>
> ...it seems a strange way to define things though ... it is a trojan because the
> user believes it doesn't do something it clearly documents that it does do
> but the user was too lazy to RTFM( orEULA) that states so.
lazy??? interesting way of *framing* things... most eula's are
unintelligible by the average person...
> I think all programs are screensavers, so any program that does something
> other than what I expect from a screensaver is a trojan by definition because
> I am too lazy to read whatever documentation came with it?
??? nice strawman... try again, only this time include the fact that it
has to do something undesirable that the user wasn't aware of...
like for example preventing you from doing what you want, what you
should be capable of doing with data on your own computer...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer wrote:
>> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>
> that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially created
in a theoretical computer science project about self-modifying program code.
And a serious virus' main goal is to spread, therefore reducing impact
on the system as much as possible. Damage routines were usually added
just for fun.
> digital rights malware has always been about one party controlling what
> another party can do with data on their own computer...
s/computer/device/
kurt wismer wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> [snip]
>> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>
> that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
Well, actually they were not. The first "proof of concept" was in fact a
game. I have a copy if you'd like to play it. :)
>
> digital rights malware has always been about one party controlling what
> another party can do with data on their own computer...
Can't argue with that. You loaded the dice with the word "malware".
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> And they sued them for computer crime, copyright infringement and fraud?
Copyright infringment. Just look up lexmark :)
> >> Well, the program also had the ability to save the decrypted content,
> >> but who cares?
> >
> > Which program?
>
> Advanced PDF Password Recovery (Pro), the tool we're talking about
The tool you were talking about apparently. I was talking about the egg
on Adobe's face, here:
The original ebook offered xor with the word "ENCRYPTION" repeating, A
russian programmer discovered this and got into significant trouble
over it. I'm thinking this predates the program your talking about.
Adobe's ebook has changed since they made asses of themselves.
Here's more information on what I was talking about, which is not
apparently what you were talking about...
That was Dmitry Sklyarov who was arrested under the provisions of the
DMCA after the release DEF CON 9 conference, the case drew a lot of
attention as it was the first time somebody had ever been arrested and
charged under the Act. The funny part is that the XOR encryption is not
even the weakest security handler that was used in eBooks (BTW the
security system for eBooks is modular and Adobe did not write the
handlers themselves) New Paradigm Resource Group used ROT13
"encryption" with a fixed key that was stored as plaintext in the
security plugin and had the audacity to charge US$3000 per document.
Hmm.. DMCa, adobe... yes, they sued him for breaking their ahem, xor
encryption. :)
Dmitry was arrested July 17, 2001 in Las Vegas, NV, at the behest of
Adobe Systems, according to the DOJ complaint, and charged with
distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection
measures (the AEBPR). He was eventually released on $50,000 bail and
restricted to California. In December 2001, was permitted to return
home to Russia with his family. Charges have not been dropped, and he
remains subject to prosecution in the US.
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
Read, learn, become educated. DMCA is not a myth, it's legal, and
bypassing technology is illegal under it, and you can be arrested,
sued, etc for it. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
> >> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
> >
> > that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
>
> Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially created
> in a theoretical computer science project about self-modifying program code.
>
I think brain was regarded as being the first.... and it wasn't
accidental...
Where do you get this information anyhow?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Right, open source continously lifts the illusion of a market for
> software. :-) And this is good: markets that aren't needed any more
> should cease.
The illusion of a market for software? That's absurd. I write free
software, but I'm not niave enough to feel that the software market
isn't needed.
> But well, what about developing software in first place? Or support
> subscriptions? What's up with technical applications?
If it's a small team and they feel like doing it for free, no problem.
Technical applications, I don't think you'll find all are free.
> Then you don't understand copyright.
I'm not sure either of you do...
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
"Dustin Cook"
>
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>> >> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>> >
>> > that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be
>> > malicious...
>>
>> Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially
>> created in a theoretical computer science project about
>> self-modifying program code.
>>
>>
> I think brain was regarded as being the first.... and it wasn't
> accidental...
Sorry, but no. "Brain" was released at least 5 years after computer
viruses were already *common* in some circles. Most notably Apple
machines in academic environments. Texas A&M springs to mind for some
reason, and viruses named "one", "two", and "three".
The concept itself was first conceived by a guy named von Neumann in
1948 I believe, and there's examples of self-replicating code dating
back to the very early 1960's. You just didn't hear about them. The
first actual spread of a self replicating program (more of a worm) was
in the early to mid 70's I believe, and accidental. "Brian" wasn't on
the scene till '86, at least 10 years later.
"Brain" might be accepted as the first example of a successful *boot
sector* infector, but it didn't even appear until a couple years after
Cohen dreamed up the idea of the more advanced quality of polymorphism.
> Where do you get this information anyhow?
Some of us actually lived through most of this. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFEbgU+no5iexlRIBERA6dVAKDNMOjX2wW3svoV7p41eWzWcByZwwCg zByX
rdEYGxQUHLGoqYh+3xNvBZc=
=NK2m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>>> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>> that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
>
> Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially created
> in a theoretical computer science project about self-modifying program code.
when the term computer virus was coined it was to describe something
that was intentionally created for the purpose of investigating the
security ramifications of just such a thing...
> And a serious virus' main goal is to spread, therefore reducing impact
> on the system as much as possible. Damage routines were usually added
> just for fun.
viruses aren't just malicious when they have payloads... most viruses
actually do not have payloads but they are still malicious... regardless
of what other things they might do besides recursively self-replicate
and infect host programs, the program infection itself and the recursive
self-replication both qualify as malicious... infection necessarily
corrupts the integrity of the host program or the process by which it
executes... recursive self-replication uses computing resources that it
has no right to use...
>> digital rights malware has always been about one party controlling what
>> another party can do with data on their own computer...
>
> s/computer/device/
a matter of perspective... all those 'devices' are computers of a sort...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>>> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>>> that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
>> Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially created
>> in a theoretical computer science project about self-modifying program code.
>
> I think brain was regarded as being the first.... and it wasn't
> accidental...
> Where do you get this information anyhow?
brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in lab
experiments...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer wrote:
> brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
> officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in lab
> experiments...
Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
discussing DRM these days. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
David H. Lipman wrote:
> WMV is not a file format to fear.
No, it's just laced with DRM, supports scripting (good design idea that
one is), proprietary, and inferior to other codecs. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
>> officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in lab
>> experiments...
>
> Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
> discussing DRM these days. :)
We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was released.
Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
kurt wismer wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>>> DRM wasn't supposed to be malicious, it just has become so lately.
>>> that's kind of like saying viruses weren't supposed to be malicious...
>>
>> Actually that's true. The first computer virus was accidentially created
>> in a theoretical computer science project about self-modifying program
>> code.
>
> when the term computer virus was coined it was to describe something that
> was intentionally created for the purpose of investigating the security
> ramifications of just such a thing...
The coining of a term, and the existence of the thing it describes, are
not synonymous in time.
>
>> And a serious virus' main goal is to spread, therefore reducing impact
>> on the system as much as possible. Damage routines were usually added
>> just for fun.
>
> viruses aren't just malicious when they have payloads... most viruses
> actually do not have payloads but they are still malicious... regardless
> of what other things they might do besides recursively self-replicate and
> infect host programs, the program infection itself and the recursive
> self-replication both qualify as malicious... infection necessarily
> corrupts the integrity of the host program or the process by which it
> executes... recursive self-replication uses computing resources that it
> has no right to use...
>
>>> digital rights malware has always been about one party controlling what
>>> another party can do with data on their own computer...
>>
>> s/computer/device/
>
> a matter of perspective... all those 'devices' are computers of a sort...
"Dustin Cook"
>
> edgewalker wrote:
>
> > Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
> > wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
> > became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
> > theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
> > software.
>
> I'm sorry. But how do you define stolen? Software can't be stolen.
> Copied, sure, but stolen would imply I deprived the original person in
> possession of access to it. Making a copy does not do this...
So I suppuse all identity theft victims are in hospital with amnesia?
Gremlin wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>> WMV is not a file format to fear.
>
> No, it's just laced with DRM, supports scripting (good design idea that
> one is),
Both are actually non-standard, according to the SMPTE VC-1
specification (the new owners of the WMV format).
> proprietary,
Not any more, but still fat with licensing issues.
> and inferior to other codecs. :)
Actually it's a nice subset of H.264 features on top of MPEG-ASP, at
least when it comes to WMV Advanced Profile.
edgewalker wrote:
>
> "Dustin Cook"
> news:1147896813.684209.92240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> edgewalker wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly! Once Mr. Gates' open letter was accepted and programmers
>> > wanted to get paid for their creations without having them stolen, it
>> > became necessary to develop a means to safeguard against software
>> > theft. Otherwise the unnecessary thing is to even expect any money for
>> > software.
>>
>> I'm sorry. But how do you define stolen? Software can't be stolen.
>> Copied, sure, but stolen would imply I deprived the original person in
>> possession of access to it. Making a copy does not do this...
>
> So I suppuse all identity theft victims are in hospital with amnesia?
That's a good analogy. The other poster's argument is that one can't
experience loss without being immediately deprived of some tangible
property. Obviously this is not true. I have to wonder how this person
would feel if they happened to create the next whiz bang "gotta have it"
bit of gadgetry, and someone broke into his secret basement laboratory,
photographed his plans and specs, then rushed the whole thing into
production ahead of him.
I agree that the whole DRM/Intellectual Property thing has gone to
draconian hell. The Sony thing is an abomination. I also believe that for
the most part the music and software industries are controlled by a ruling
minority, and in the end both the consumers *and* the creative get rump
humped. But that's no reason at all to stop recognizing the fact that if
you create something, it's yours no matter what sort of canvas you use,
and you should retain your right to be fairly compensated for anything
that creation does or produces if you wish. Unauthorized reproduction *is*
stealing, but we're going about solving the problem in entirely the wrong
ways. :(
Borked Pseudo Mailed
news:df35bb29602612768528aaff3a720df4@pseudo.borked.net:
> The other poster's argument is that one can't
> experience loss without being immediately deprived of some tangible
> property. Obviously this is not true.
Your heart's in the right place for seeing the abuses that attach to that
misnomer, intellectual property.
However, the argument that copyright (patent, etc.) infringement is not and
cannot be theft hangs on a necessary element of that crime: asportation
(carrying off depriving the owner of its possession). And intangible
property is not subject to asportation. No asportation, no theft.
Under the common law, larceny [theft] is the trespassory taking and
asportation of the (tangible) personal property of another with the intent
to deprive him or her of it permanently.(1) Such is the traditional legal
view regarding theft (a view the intellectual property lobby is doing as
much as it can to blunt and erode both socially in ordinary discourse and
in legal cicles).
Of course, just because it isn't theft doesn't mean a wrong hasn't been
committed in the eyes of the law - but that wrong is not theft. The wrongs
of copyright or patent infringement have, historically, not only not been
considered theft, they were not crimes at all. No, they were torts, civil
wrongs. The IP lobby has, of course, had considerably success in recent
years in criminalizing such infringements under draconian laws enacted due
to their lobbying - but that's just another element of the rampant abuse.
Regards,
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny
"nemo_outis"
> Borked Pseudo Mailed
> news:df35bb29602612768528aaff3a720df4@pseudo.borked.net:
>
>
> > The other poster's argument is that one can't
> > experience loss without being immediately deprived of some tangible
> > property. Obviously this is not true.
>
>
> Your heart's in the right place for seeing the abuses that attach to that
> misnomer, intellectual property.
He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
edgewalker wrote:
> He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
> from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
> amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
So what's up with free software?
> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
> want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
> tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully
intended by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
"edgewalker"
news:1273h6u3r94jg73@corp.supernews.com:
....
>> Your heart's in the right place for seeing the abuses that attach to
>> that misnomer, intellectual property.
>
> He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could
> expect from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of
> said software amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
>
> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he
> would want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of
> law. He tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the
> thief that he is.
Oh dear, there's nothing more sanctimoniousness than a reformed drunk.
No, the abuses which attach to IP are on the side of the producer, not the
consumer. And infringements of government granted privileges, monopolies,
and exclusions, privileges and exclusions granted using a debased
perversion of the laws to cater to corporate rapaciousness, is not theft -
it's not even a distant cousin of theft. It's a tearing down of fences
wrongfully erected to enclose the commons which have been erected by
usurpers.
Regards,
PS I only made a narrow technical correction to Borky regarding
asportation. Otherwise he seems to understand that IP is the rubric of an
abuse done under colour of law but which is void as unconscionable.
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
> viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was released.
Okay. Do you have names/specs on any of these? Usually, when I think of
a virus in the wild, I'm under the assumption it's more widespread then
one of several possibly closed LANs?
Atleast, with mine, they tended to travel globally.
> Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
*yawn* I'm not really interested in comparison contests, I've retired
from the VX scene over 6 years ago. I couldn't care less. :)
> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
So do you have the names then of the first ones in your view?
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
edgewalker wrote:
> > I'm sorry. But how do you define stolen? Software can't be stolen.
> > Copied, sure, but stolen would imply I deprived the original person in
> > possession of access to it. Making a copy does not do this...
>
> So I suppuse all identity theft victims are in hospital with amnesia?
identity is software now?
Your comparing apples and oranges here I think.
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> That's a good analogy. The other poster's argument is that one can't
> experience loss without being immediately deprived of some tangible
> property. Obviously this is not true. I have to wonder how this person
> would feel if they happened to create the next whiz bang "gotta have it"
> bit of gadgetry, and someone broke into his secret basement laboratory,
> photographed his plans and specs, then rushed the whole thing into
> production ahead of him.
It's a poor one actually. Your identity isn't software. Stealing ones
identity is not the same as copying Windows XP cdroms.
> that creation does or produces if you wish. Unauthorized reproduction *is*
> stealing, but we're going about solving the problem in entirely the wrong
> ways. :(
According to ... many sources, unauthorized reproduction is copyright
infringement, possibly even patent infringement, but actual theft it is
not. You can't change the rules midgame. :)
edgewalker wrote:
> He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
> from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
> amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
I only know what you wrote. You claimed unuathorized copying was
stealing, and I disagreed. Nothing else intended or implied. We don't
have any solid evidence that giving authorized copies away affects the
revenue postively or negatively. One could even go so far as to say
unauthorized copies of windows are what's allowed microsoft to be the
dominate os developer of the day.
> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
> want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
> tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm posting with my real name, valid
email, etc. I don't pretend to be something i'm not. I'm well aware of
the laws I've broken, and I make no effort to hide behind any of them.
The correct terminology however with regard to myself, is a copyright
infringer, I'm no more a thief then your a saint. The intent of the law
was clear with regard to copyright, and the law has been bought for
corporations, not for users like you and myself.
Now however that I know your true intent with your posts, I will remain
from responding further with you. You should stick to debates on the
points... Making snide remarks towards the poster doesn't paint you in
a better light.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> So what's up with free software?
No clue. :)
> > Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
> > want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
> > tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
>
> The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully
> intended by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
You know this, I know this, but his post obviously isn't intended to
discuss the differences. It's simply intended as a cheap shot against
me. Laugh laugh... No matter. :)
nemo_outis wrote:
> Oh dear, there's nothing more sanctimoniousness than a reformed drunk.
Heh. I don't drink. :)
> No, the abuses which attach to IP are on the side of the producer, not the
> consumer. And infringements of government granted privileges, monopolies,
> and exclusions, privileges and exclusions granted using a debased
> perversion of the laws to cater to corporate rapaciousness, is not theft -
> it's not even a distant cousin of theft. It's a tearing down of fences
> wrongfully erected to enclose the commons which have been erected by
> usurpers.
He's not interested in the facts. I don't see much point in continuing,
he's already showed his ace card.
Dustin Cook wrote:
> It's a poor one actually. Your identity isn't software. Stealing ones
> identity is not the same as copying Windows XP cdroms.
Stealing identity? :-D
Now you're following their propaganda, too.
"Dustin Cook"
news:1148314092.568349.197800@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> He's not interested in the facts. I don't see much point in
> continuing, he's already showed his ace card.
Your abject surrender and capitulation is duly noted.
nemo_outis wrote:
> "Dustin Cook"
> news:1148314092.568349.197800@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > He's not interested in the facts. I don't see much point in
> > continuing, he's already showed his ace card.
>
>
> Your abject surrender and capitulation is duly noted.
Not to question your note taking abilities, but I don't recall claiming
surrender. I wasn't aware this was something to be surrendered? If it's
not facts you wish to discuss, what's the point?
This isn't some point awarding system, it's usenet for christs sake....
Ah well, no real big loss as it were. :)
Oh, that reminds me, for some really good information on copyright
infringement and why it isn't theft, please see:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com, Specifically ask for CodeWarrior to
explain why one thing isn't the same as the other. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Stealing identity? :-D
> Now you're following their propaganda, too.
My bad. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>
>>kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
>>>officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in lab
>>>experiments...
>>
>>Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
>>discussing DRM these days. :)
>
>
> We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
> viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was released.
>
> Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
>
> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
>
I wrote the first "boot virus" for the PDP-11 in 1970 - it was a single
instruction that copied itself throughout memory when someone tried to
start the bootstrap loader!-)
Rick Merrill wrote:
> I wrote the first "boot virus" for the PDP-11 in 1970 - it was a single
> instruction that copied itself throughout memory when someone tried to
> start the bootstrap loader!-)
Ahh, So basically this is right up there with the magic HD destroying
virus, the monitor explosion virus, etc... Which I suppose isn't that
big of a deal. We tend to be straying from the topic tho.. Which was
DRM last time I checked, not the "who's who" in virus history. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
edgewalker wrote:
> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
> want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
> tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
I skipped the ripper part, my bad. I do need to respond to this.
Personally, I feel being a ripper isn't a bad thing. I don't rip code,
only music/movies :) Some people appreciate my efforts in this field
and others do not. It's a moral choice for some I suppose. Let me ask
you this.. Say you bought the new switchfoot cd for yourself or a
family member. You legally have a right to an archival copy of this, A
non commercial backup. Say you'd like to transfer it to cassette. Are
you (a) going to buy it in casette form? or (b) going to copy it to
tape? Your legally allowed to do so, but due to the DRM present on the
disc, laypersons will be unable to do so. So which would you rather
have it? Pay for the music twice, or rip the thing so you can do as
your legally entitled in the first place?
How many of you have children who like to watch the cartoons etc on
DVD? Do you enjoy replacing the disc everytime your kid scratches the
hell out of it? Ripping a backup, and using the backup only while
keeping the original in a safe place seems to make more sense from an
economic standpoint.
It's not so black and white is it? :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
nemo_outis wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed
> news:df35bb29602612768528aaff3a720df4@pseudo.borked.net:
>
>
>> The other poster's argument is that one can't experience loss without
>> being immediately deprived of some tangible property. Obviously this is
>> not true.
>
>
> Your heart's in the right place for seeing the abuses that attach to that
> misnomer, intellectual property.
>
> However, the argument that copyright (patent, etc.) infringement is not
> and cannot be theft hangs on a necessary element of that crime:
> asportation (carrying off depriving the owner of its possession). And
Your knowledge of "theft" is even more out dated than your knowledge of
PGPWholedisk. US code was amended a few years back to include the wording
"criminal conversion" which covers intangible property. Probably for this
exact purpose. Consequently your argument is meaningless, but a little
embarrassing I'd imagine.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny
ROTFL!
No wonder you look like a fool. Wikipedia is your "authoritative source".
A friggin BLOG anyone in the world can screw up. Don't bother actually
reading from a DOJ site or anything Nemo.
Wikipedia.....
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> The coining of a term, and the existence of the thing it describes, are
> not synonymous in time.
Very true. But you simply claiming something doesn't make it so,
either.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Both are actually non-standard, according to the SMPTE VC-1
> specification (the new owners of the WMV format).
>
> > proprietary,
>
> Not any more, but still fat with licensing issues.
>
> > and inferior to other codecs. :)
>
> Actually it's a nice subset of H.264 features on top of MPEG-ASP, at
> least when it comes to WMV Advanced Profile.
So are you saying it's better/worse then xvid/divx codecs? Xvid is
free, open source, supported on standalone players....
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Your legally allowed to do so, but due to the DRM present on the
> disc, laypersons will be unable to do so.
Violating the CD-DA specification is no copy protection measure.
Actually every player's task is to either ignore or correct these errors.
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Your knowledge of "theft" is even more out dated than your knowledge of
> PGPWholedisk. US code was amended a few years back to include the wording
> "criminal conversion" which covers intangible property. Probably for this
> exact purpose. Consequently your argument is meaningless, but a little
> embarrassing I'd imagine.
I'm unable to find this intangible property comment you speak of.
Copyright infringement isn't theft I do maintain, it's what it is.
Unauthorized copying/transfer of information. Information isn't
typically something you can hold in your hand. :) A PDA itself isn't
the information for those nit picky posters, whats on your screen is.
:)
Oh, and wikipedia isn't my source
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-004.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
> No wonder you look like a fool. Wikipedia is your "authoritative source".
> A friggin BLOG anyone in the world can screw up. Don't bother actually
> reading from a DOJ site or anything Nemo.
While it is a blog anybody can screwup, many people make a fine effort
to keep that from happening. With that said, I'd take information
presented on it as with everything else with a grain of salt.
> Wikipedia.....
Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> and inferior to other codecs. :)
>> Actually it's a nice subset of H.264 features on top of MPEG-ASP, at
>> least when it comes to WMV Advanced Profile.
>
> So are you saying it's better/worse then xvid/divx codecs?
In terms of quality: Better, if properly used.
> Xvid is free, open source, supported on standalone players....
and has the best quality among all MPEG4 ASP codecs.
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
> > Your legally allowed to do so, but due to the DRM present on the
> > disc, laypersons will be unable to do so.
>
> Violating the CD-DA specification is no copy protection measure.
> Actually every player's task is to either ignore or correct these errors.
And many players are unable to properly do so. Do I really need to
quote articles where various non standard CD-DA cds messed up
something? :) The copy protection is designed to keep you from making a
backup of the disc, it's not foolproof, but for many it tends to work.
nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote in
news:53a3887a8ea555c03352e98573c6c7f9@pseudo.borked.net:
>> However, the argument that copyright (patent, etc.) infringement is
>> not and cannot be theft hangs on a necessary element of that crime:
>> asportation (carrying off depriving the owner of its possession).
>> And
>
>
>
> Your knowledge of "theft" is even more out dated than your knowledge
> of PGPWholedisk. US code was amended a few years back to include the
> wording "criminal conversion" which covers intangible property.
> Probably for this exact purpose. Consequently your argument is
> meaningless, but a little embarrassing I'd imagine.
Of course, under statute law, you can say anything. While I'm being
facetious, a statute could, in principle, say that copyright infringement
is fraud, theft, embezzlement, stealing, conversion, conspiracy, and
mopery with intent to gawk.
That's why I was careful to refer to the common law definition of theft ,
the traditional view of the matter before the wave of current statutory
abuses. I did so to provide a perspective, a perspective from which to
see how distorted the law has become under the lobbying pressure of
rapacious and venal IP corporations, and the abjectly acquiescent
lawmakers who pander to them.
No one, least of all me, denies that current statutory law in many
jurisdictions (not just the US) makes infringement a crime as well as a
tort, calls it, directly or indirectly, theft, and limits, restricts, and
proscribes even those historical rights of fair use that the public
previously enjoyed. No, current statury law does all that and more.
That's why such laws must be opposed, reversed, uprooted, and overturned.
And ignored and disobeyed in the meantime.
But, bad as their legal shenanigans have been, the IP lobbyists and
usurpers go even further in their attempts to disguise their rapacious
encroachments with smoke and mirrors. Not content with having bribed and
coerced lawmakers, they are trying to preempt the very tools for
discussing their abuses - the words and terms that apply to their
depradations. They wish to call "intellectual property" what should
properly be called "government granted privileges and monopolies" and
they wish to call resistance to their abusive monopolies "theft." Well,
I'm not prepared so easily to let them - I will not cede the language to
them along with their other spoils.
I'm not making a legal brief, I'm making a call for resistance. For
resistance to intolerable abuses, whether protected by debased and
currupt laws or not. And it seems that much of the public, aware of the
injustices and abuses being heaped upon them, are more than willing to
engage in civil disobedience against such laws, and to reassert through
direct action, not legal niceties, their rights.
Regrads,
PS As for the Wikipedia references, I am not preparing a legal brief
complete with Table of Authorities. As I said earlier, I am calling for
action, action by everyday citizens. And it is most appropriate when
reminding those citizens of the distortions and abuses, legal and even
verbal, which the usurpers have used, to refer them to the Wikipedia.
(Incidentally, the common-law definition of larceny cited in the
Wikipedia can be found in numerous learned legal references as well.)
But that is only by way of background, which is why I confined those
references to a postscript.
Moreover, consumed as you are with trying to best me (fat chance!), you
have lost all ability to deal with the core topic as you search in vain
hoping to find some small error or mis-statement of mine on which to
pounce. And so you carp at Wikpedia references. Pathetic really.
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>> Your knowledge of "theft" is even more out dated than your knowledge of
>> PGPWholedisk. US code was amended a few years back to include the
>> wording "criminal conversion" which covers intangible property. Probably
>> for this exact purpose. Consequently your argument is meaningless, but a
>> little embarrassing I'd imagine.
>
> I'm unable to find this intangible property comment you speak of.
Then you didn't look very hard.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/criminal%20convers ion
"Criminal conversion, in criminal law, is usually defined as the crime of
exerting unauthorised use or control of someone else's property. It
differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to
deprive the owner of the use of that property."
No physical "transfer" of property need be present.
Whether or not you want to call software/music piracy "theft" is
irrelevant. A meaningless quibble. It's misappropriation, of equal weight
and penalty to physically stealing a wallet, and covered under the same
statutes.
PERIOD.
TwistyCreek wrote:
> Then you didn't look very hard.
No, I admit I didn't.
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/criminal%20convers ion
>
> "Criminal conversion, in criminal law, is usually defined as the crime of
> exerting unauthorised use or control of someone else's property. It
> differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to
> deprive the owner of the use of that property."
>
> No physical "transfer" of property need be present.
>
> Whether or not you want to call software/music piracy "theft" is
> irrelevant. A meaningless quibble. It's misappropriation, of equal weight
> and penalty to physically stealing a wallet, and covered under the same
> statutes.
And this has been tried in court has it? I'm not aware of anyone caught
and charged with anything besides copyright infringement, which is a
civil matter. You'd think if copyright infringement was actual theft
and regarded as the same that the RIAA/MPAA would have tried this by
now. Incidently, they haven't. That's alot of "theft" for them not to
even try this in a courtroom, don't ya think? Not all laws in the books
will hold up in a courtroom but it does look nice on paper.
Can you site even one case where piracy charges were tied to theft?
It's copyright infringement, and it's copyright infringement for a
reason. No stonewalling is going to change that. Incidently, piracy
implies boarding a ship and looting it on the high seas.... It's just
been recoined withen the past few years to have meaning for copyright
infringement, because let's face it, copyright infringers doesn't have
the ring that a "pirate" yar har me matey would have in the papers. :)
> PERIOD.
When it's upheld in a courtroom and on appeals, sure. Until then, it's
hot air.
TwistyCreek wrote:
.. A meaningless quibble. It's misappropriation, of equal weight
> and penalty to physically stealing a wallet, and covered under the same
> statutes.
BTW, copyright infringement convictions do allow for $250,000 or so per
each instance... Since when does stealing a wallet give you a quarter
of a million dollar fine and/or 5 years in federal prison?
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> edgewalker wrote:
>
>> He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could
>> expect from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of
>> said software amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
>
> So what's up with free software?
What does free software have to do with anything? Besides proving the
other guy's point? The authors CHOSE to make it free, and if you start
charging for copies you're stealing.
Thanks for pointing out how the logic is flawless.
>
>> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he
>> would want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of
>> law. He tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the
>> thief that he is.
>
> The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully intended
> by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>> brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
>>> officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in lab
>>> experiments...
>> Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
>> discussing DRM these days. :)
>
> We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
> viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was released.
>
> Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
i see, well then you should have no difficulty providing documentation
of this supposed fact...
> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
just so that no one gets confused later on, when i say brain was the
first pc virus in the wild, i'm talking about the ibm pc (and
compatible) platform, not pc in the more general sense that it used to
be used in...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>> The coining of a term, and the existence of the thing it describes, are
>> not synonymous in time.
>
> Very true. But you simply claiming something doesn't make it so, either.
Dude... real live "in the wild" computer viruses were traveling around on
mostly Apple II game disks YEARS before Brain. Even a simple "computer
virus timeline" punched into Google would clue you into that much. The
very first hit:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872842.html
1981
Apple Viruses 1, 2, and 3 are some of the first viruses "in the wild,"
or in the public domain. Found on the Apple II operating system, the
viruses spread through Texas A&M via pirated computer games.
[...]
1986
Two programmers named Basit and Amjad replace the executable code in the
boot sector of a floppy disk with their own code designed to infect each
360kb floppy accessed on any drive. Infected floppies had "@ Brain"
for a volume label.
kurt wismer wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>>
>>>> brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
>>>> officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in
>>>> lab experiments...
>>> Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
>>> discussing DRM these days. :)
>>
>> We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
>> viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was
>> released.
>>
>> Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
>
> i see, well then you should have no difficulty providing documentation of
> this supposed fact...
It's been posted a couple times now. You're wrong.
>> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
>> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
>
> just so that no one gets confused later on, when i say brain was the first
> pc virus in the wild, i'm talking about the ibm pc (and compatible)
> platform, not pc in the more general sense that it used to be used in...
So now Apples aren't personal computers just so you can claim victory?
That has to be one of the most pathetic waffles I've ever seen Kurt. Why
not redefine "in the wild" to mean "across the Internet" while you're at
it. That way you could argue something like MyDoom was the first virus
ever. Or how about just tossing aside anything that ever infected personal
computers with off white cases and claiming there IS no real virus problem.
Sorry Kurt, you screwed the pooch on this one. There were "PEE CEE"
viruses in the wild at LEAST 5 years before Brain, and all the redefining
of a word you care to mess with will only make you look like a complete
fool. Apple made and makes personal computers too. So did a few of other
companies in the past. But Apple has the distinction of being the first
PERSONAL COMPUTER to be at the center of an in the wild virus infestation
according to recorded history.
Sorry about your luck, sucks to be you, blah blah blah......
TwistyCreek wrote:
> So now Apples aren't personal computers just so you can claim victory?
Apples aren't Personal Computers[tm], they're computers for personal
use. :-)
> That has to be one of the most pathetic waffles I've ever seen Kurt.
(Trinity) "What do we need?"
(Neo) "Waffles... lots of waffles!"
(Trinity) "And chips."
(Neo) "And beer."
*SCNR*
> Why not redefine "in the wild" to mean "across the Internet" while
you're at
> it. That way you could argue something like MyDoom was the first virus
> ever.
What about the SQL.Slammer worm? One single UDP packet, alive for more
than three years (which is insanely more than the TTL). Now, is that
something?
kurt wismer wrote:
> > We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
> > viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was released.
On closed networks where floppies must have been traded lots?
> i see, well then you should have no difficulty providing documentation
> of this supposed fact...
Oh, he can prove it, but he will have to go outside the ibm platform to
do so. :)
> just so that no one gets confused later on, when i say brain was the
> first pc virus in the wild, i'm talking about the ibm pc (and
> compatible) platform, not pc in the more general sense that it used to
> be used in...
I believe everyone knows this Kurt. But this topic is quickly turning
into one of those mac vs pc style discussions. At some point, I expect
to see some name calling. :)
How in the hell did we get this far anyways? The poster asked if wmv
files were a risk, and his question I think has been answered. Now were
discussing copyright/wrongs, drm, virus history? and god knows whats
coming next.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
TwistyCreek wrote:
> Dude... real live "in the wild" computer viruses were traveling around on
> mostly Apple II game disks YEARS before Brain. Even a simple "computer
> virus timeline" punched into Google would clue you into that much. The
> very first hit:
Umm, Apple II is not an ibm compatable.
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872842.html
>
> 1981
> Apple Viruses 1, 2, and 3 are some of the first viruses "in the wild,"
> or in the public domain. Found on the Apple II operating system, the
> viruses spread through Texas A&M via pirated computer games.
Yes... and again, not ibm/pc.
> [...]
>
> 1986
> Two programmers named Basit and Amjad replace the executable code in the
> boot sector of a floppy disk with their own code designed to infect each
> 360kb floppy accessed on any drive. Infected floppies had "@ Brain"
> for a volume label.
Yes, ibm pc.
What was the point of your post? Nobody really disputed viruses
existing before Brain. Does anyone really give a shit about the history
of viruses? They don't have much of a real future at this point
anyways. Their simplistic little programs of little to no value aside
from the neat programming tricks you can learn writing them. The end
result is a glorified file section copier however.
TwistyCreek wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
> > Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> >> Dustin Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>> kurt wismer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> brain was the first _pc_ virus in the wild... the first virus to
> >>>> officially be labeled a virus was written by fred cohen and used in
> >>>> lab experiments...
> >>> Oops. My bad.. I thought we were talking about PC's considering were
> >>> discussing DRM these days. :)
> >>
> >> We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
> >> viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was
> >> released.
> >>
> >> Been there, seen that, grew out of the t-shirts years ago. :(
> >
> > i see, well then you should have no difficulty providing documentation of
> > this supposed fact...
>
> It's been posted a couple times now. You're wrong.
>
> >> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
> >> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
> >
> > just so that no one gets confused later on, when i say brain was the first
> > pc virus in the wild, i'm talking about the ibm pc (and compatible)
> > platform, not pc in the more general sense that it used to be used in...
>
> So now Apples aren't personal computers just so you can claim victory?
>
>
Hmm, I don't recall the original Apple II as being an ibm pc or
compatable, no. I believe everyone, except mebbe you was on the same
topic. PC's as in IBM pcs... DRM is primarily a PC thing. Are you lost?
> That has to be one of the most pathetic waffles I've ever seen Kurt. Why
> not redefine "in the wild" to mean "across the Internet" while you're at
> it. That way you could argue something like MyDoom was the first virus
> ever. Or how about just tossing aside anything that ever infected personal
> computers with off white cases and claiming there IS no real virus problem.
Try to stay with us, I don't know how much herion you've injected
today, but we are discussing PCs... Ok?
> Sorry Kurt, you screwed the pooch on this one. There were "PEE CEE"
> viruses in the wild at LEAST 5 years before Brain, and all the redefining
> of a word you care to mess with will only make you look like a complete
> fool. Apple made and makes personal computers too. So did a few of other
Apple made apples and later the macintrash. Just how wild were the
apple viruses? I'd think you have a limited range with them....
> companies in the past. But Apple has the distinction of being the first
> PERSONAL COMPUTER to be at the center of an in the wild virus infestation
> according to recorded history.
Really? I tried your suggestion, I must be terrible with google.
http://inventors.about.com/od/computerviruses/
* The first PC virus was created. Known as the Brain virus, it was
written in Pakistan. The Brain virus was a boot-sector virus, which
means it only infected the boot records of 360K floppy disks, but not
hard drives. It would occupy unused space on the disk so that it could
not be used. It was also the first "stealth" virus, meaning it tried to
hide itself from detection. If a computer user tried to view the
infected space on the disk, Brain would display the original,
uninfected boot sector.
1987
* In November, the Lehigh virus was discovered at Lehigh University
in the U.S. It was the first "memory resident file infector". A
file-infecting virus attacks executable files. It gets control when the
file is opened. The Lehigh virus attacked a file called COMMAND.COM.
When the file was run (usually by booting from an infected disk), the
virus stayed in the resident memory.
* In December, the Jerusalem virus appeared at Hebrew University in
Israel. It was also a memory resident file infector. It was the first
virus that contained a bug that caused it to re-infect already infected
programs.
1988
* In March, the first anti-virus virus was written. It was designed
to detect and remove the Brain virus and immunized disks against Brain
infection.
* The Cascade virus is found in Germany. It was the first encrypted
virus, meaning it was coded so that it could not be changed or removed.
* Viruses started getting media attention, with articles in
magazines like Business Week, Newsweek, Fortune, PC Magazine and Time
1989
History of Viruses
The term ``computer virus'' was formally defined by Fred Cohen in 1983,
while he performed academic experiments on a Digital Equipment
Corporation VAX system. Viruses are classified as being one of two
types: research or ``in the wild.'' A research virus is one that has
been written for research or study purposes and has received almost no
distribution to the public. On the other hand, viruses which have been
seen with any regularity are termed ``in the wild.'' The first computer
viruses were developed in the early 1980s. The first viruses found in
the wild were Apple II viruses, such as Elk Cloner, which was reported
in 1981 [Den90]. Viruses have now been found on the following
platforms:
* Apple II
* IBM PC
* Macintosh
* Atari
* Amiga
Note that all viruses found in the wild target personal computers. As
of today, the overwhelming number of virus strains are IBM PC viruses.
However, as of August 1989, the number of PC, Atari ST, Amiga, and
Macintosh viruses were almost identical (21, 22, 18, and 12
respectively [Den90]). Academic studies have shown that viruses are
possible for multi-tasking systems, but they have not yet appeared.
This point will be discussed later.
Viruses have ``evolved'' over the years due to efforts by their authors
to make the code more difficult to detect, disassemble, and eradicate.
This evolution has been especially apparent in the IBM PC viruses;
since there are more distinct viruses known for the DOS operating
system than any other.
The first IBM-PC virus appeared in 1986 [Den90]; this was the Brain
virus. Brain was a boot sector virus and remained resident. In 1987,
Brain was followed by Alameda (Yale), Cascade, Jerusalem, Lehigh, and
Miami (South African Friday the 13th). These viruses expanded the
target executables to include COM and EXE files. Cascade was encrypted
to deter disassembly and detection. Variable encryption appeared in
1989 with the 1260 virus. Stealth viruses, which employ various
techniques to avoid detection, also first appeared in 1989, such as
Zero Bug, Dark Avenger and Frodo (4096 or 4K). In 1990, self-modifying
viruses, such as Whale were introduced. The year 1991 brought the GP1
virus, which is ``network-sensitive'' and attempts to steal Novell
NetWare passwords. Since their inception, viruses have become
increasingly complex.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:LtGNK4wbJskJ:csrc.nist. gov/publications/nistir/threats/subsubsection3_3_1_1.html+co mputer+virus+history&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
Damn... What's the deal I wonder? :)
Your source seems to be missing the year of the first official AV, and
obviously can't attribute the first PC virus as being apple 1, 2, or 3.
Now, this is tons more boring information then anybody really wants to
read, so my apologies... :)
> Sorry about your luck, sucks to be you, blah blah blah......
*yawn*. Try to stay on topic next time eh? PC... not apple. Know thy
difference :)
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
> > So now Apples aren't personal computers just so you can claim victory?
>
> Apples aren't Personal Computers[tm], they're computers for personal
> use. :-)
Apples aren't IBM pcs, which you agreed are what we were discussing. :)
CoreWars was a neat game, but not actually a virus. It would be
classified as a worm I should think, it doesn't infect things... it
merely copies itself.. but no infection is taking place in the process.
You could easily write a program to make copies until you have no more
space/memory left, but unless/until something is infected, it's still
nothing more then a worm. A self contained program that replicates
itself, and doesn't attach in any way to other programs is a worm. Not
strickly speaking, a virus. And before you even try, a bootsector
loader IS a program. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> > We are. And brain was NOT the first PC virus in the wild. There were
>> > viruses running wild on college campuses YEARS before Brain was
>> > released.
>
> On closed networks where floppies must have been traded lots?
Oh brother!
When I suggested Kurt revise history to include only "Network Viruses" so
he could argue from an even more silly ass position, I never thought for a
minute someone would be inane enough to actually make the attempt.
My bad. I severely underestimated the depths of your inanity. :(
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>> Dude... real live "in the wild" computer viruses were traveling around
>> on mostly Apple II game disks YEARS before Brain. Even a simple
>> "computer virus timeline" punched into Google would clue you into that
>> much. The very first hit:
>
> Umm, Apple II is not an ibm compatable.
So fucking what? It's a PC, and there were viruses running wild on them
years before Brain.
Or are you going to join Kurt in one of the most pathetic waffles of all
times by simply discarding entire classes of fruits so you can amuse the
entire world by claiming the only REAL fruit is an orange?
> What was the point of your post? Nobody really disputed viruses existing
> before Brain. Does anyone really give a shit about the history of viruses?
Dude.... you SERIOUSLY need to put down the joint. This whole subthread
was started and then polluted by history challenged knotheads claiming
Brain was "the first virus". And of course those ultimately dishonest
people who rewrite statements to fit their agenda when they're proven
wrong.
It's really more pathetic than anything else if you want to know the
truth. A bunch of so called "informed" people being so damned narrow of
mind they think MS-DOS is the beginning and ending of all civilization,
and the 80x86 platform the only thing that ever existed prior to an eye
blink ago.
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Hmm, I don't recall the original Apple II as being an ibm pc or
Apple made PC's, Apples had viruses running wild on them 5 years before
Brain. Live with it. Or don't. Your tap dancing is good for a few laughs
anyway.
> compatable, no. I believe everyone, except mebbe you was on the same
> topic. PC's as in IBM pcs... DRM is primarily a PC thing. Are you lost?
I'm sorry, "primarily"? You can't even walk across the room to defend
yourself without tripping over your own feet, now can you?
>> That has to be one of the most pathetic waffles I've ever seen Kurt. Why
>> not redefine "in the wild" to mean "across the Internet" while you're at
>> it. That way you could argue something like MyDoom was the first virus
>> ever. Or how about just tossing aside anything that ever infected
>> personal computers with off white cases and claiming there IS no real
>> virus problem.
>
> Try to stay with us, I don't know how much herion you've injected today,
> but we are discussing PCs... Ok?
Yup. Personal Computers, as in computers made for persons. As in Apples,
Ataris, and even CP/M PL/M type critters dating back as far as the mid
70's. They're ALL PC's, each and every one of them. The IBM PC is only one
flavor, that's why it has that "IBM" part in front of the "PC" thing for
God's sake.
http://www.library.nuigalway.ie/help/jargon/jargonm.html
PC - "Acronym for Personal Computer"
http://www.engin.com.au/public/tGlossary.asp
"PC: personal computer"
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
PC PC n. (Computers)
A personal computer; a computer designed for use by one
person at a time; -- contrasted with shared-time computers
such as mainframes and minicomputers, which may be
accessed by multiple users each operating from a different
input device (in the 1990's, usually a terminal)."
WordNet (r) 2.0
PC
n : a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and
designed to be used by one person at a time syn: personal
computer, microcomputer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
personal computer
n. Abbr. PC
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in
an office or at home or school.
>> Sorry Kurt, you screwed the pooch on this one. There were "PEE CEE"
>> viruses in the wild at LEAST 5 years before Brain, and all the
>> redefining of a word you care to mess with will only make you look like
>> a complete fool. Apple made and makes personal computers too. So did a
>> few of other
>
> Apple made apples and later the macintrash. Just how wild were the apple
> viruses? I'd think you have a limited range with them....
Waffling noted. First Apples aren't "PC's", now they're a "limited range"
to work with.
You're pathetic.
>> companies in the past. But Apple has the distinction of being the first
>> PERSONAL COMPUTER to be at the center of an in the wild virus
>> infestation according to recorded history.
>
> Really? I tried your suggestion, I must be terrible with google.
>
> http://inventors.about.com/od/computerviruses/
Do you even READ your own cites?
> regularity are termed "in the wild." The first computer viruses were
> developed in the early 1980s. The first viruses found in the wild were
> Apple II viruses, such as Elk Cloner, which was reported in 1981 [Den90].
> Viruses have now been found on the following platforms:
>
> * Apple II
> * IBM PC
> * Macintosh
> * Atari
> * Amiga
>
> Note that all viruses found in the wild target personal computers. As of
Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
"PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
Damn son, thanks for doing all the work for me. :)
> today, the overwhelming number of virus strains are IBM PC viruses.
Whoops! There's that pesky "IBM" again.
> The first IBM-PC virus appeared in 1986 [Den90]; this was the Brain virus.
Oh wait, not the first "PC Virus", the first ***IBM PC Virus***. There's
that nasty little distinction biting you in your ass one more time for
good measure.
> Damn... What's the deal I wonder? :)
I dunno. Maybe you're just functionally illiterate?
> Your source seems to be missing the year of the first official AV, and
> obviously can't attribute the first PC virus as being apple 1, 2, or 3.
That's EXACTLY what it did, and so does any other reference that doesn't
misnomer "PC" to mean "IBM".
> *yawn*. Try to stay on topic next time eh? PC... not apple. Know thy
> difference :)
There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
http://www.pc-history.org
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pc.htm
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/1908p133id52503.htm
Here's one with pretty pictures and easy little chunks you MIGHT be able
to keep up with....
http://www.computer-museum.org/exhibits/pccomeshome/index.ht ml
http://www.rgross.de/epcstory.htm
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~bill/ramblings.html
http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html
Just beg again if you need more hand holding Cook. :)
TwistyCreek wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
[snip]
>>> Brain might have been the first boot sector infector to be released for
>>> the IBM PC/MS-DOS platform, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.
>> just so that no one gets confused later on, when i say brain was the first
>> pc virus in the wild, i'm talking about the ibm pc (and compatible)
>> platform, not pc in the more general sense that it used to be used in...
>
> So now Apples aren't personal computers just so you can claim victory?
http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
>
> That has to be one of the most pathetic waffles I've ever seen Kurt. Why
it's not a waffle, it's disambiguation... i figured the chances were low
that anyone would have missed the product name evolution, but just in
case i should be more specific... i was already well aware of the fact
that other platforms had instances of viral programs before that point...
[snip]
> Sorry Kurt, you screwed the pooch on this one. There were "PEE CEE"
> viruses in the wild at LEAST 5 years before Brain, and all the redefining
> of a word you care to mess with will only make you look like a complete
> fool. Apple made and makes personal computers too. So did a few of other
> companies in the past. But Apple has the distinction of being the first
> PERSONAL COMPUTER to be at the center of an in the wild virus infestation
> according to recorded history.
did you miss the 90's entirely? pc became synonymous with the ibm pc
compatible computer a long time ago... apples, macs, amigas, ataris -
they all did a pretty good job of resisting cloning but the ibm pc's
clones were legion and they couldn't all be called ibm pc since they
weren't made by ibm so the name was contracted to just pc...
i realize that it had another meaning before that, but nobody (not even
apple computers) uses pc in the general personal computer meaning
anymore - personal computers became the norm so 'personal computer'
became a pointless distinction to make...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:51:22 -0400, kurt wismer
wrote:
>did you miss the 90's entirely? pc became synonymous with the ibm pc
>compatible computer a long time ago... apples, macs, amigas, ataris -
>they all did a pretty good job of resisting cloning but the ibm pc's
>clones were legion and they couldn't all be called ibm pc since they
>weren't made by ibm so the name was contracted to just pc...
>
>i realize that it had another meaning before that, but nobody (not even
>apple computers) uses pc in the general personal computer meaning
>anymore - personal computers became the norm so 'personal computer'
>became a pointless distinction to make...
That reminds me of a incident that occurred well before the advent
of the first IBM PC. I was regularly using a $50,000 desktop
computer manufactured by Hewlett Packard. The large company
I worked for had purchased a fairly large number of these machines
for use primarily in engineering labs where they resided on work
benches (they were kinda large for a desk, actually).
A customer training rep had many of us in a class, and he started
rattling on about PCs. Now, to those of us who at one time or another
had been involved with control engineering, a PC meant "programmable
controller", a quite different kind of animal. So I raised my little
picky and asked for clarification. Sure enough, he was talking about
the subject Hp desktops. Apparently, the computer people at Hp
had been referring to their line of expensive desktop computers as PCs
for quite some time, and their people took it for granted that any
audience would know WTF they were talking about :)
The Hp desktop machine was very much like what IBM introduced
later in many respects, but much better. For storage, it used a floppy
drive with large (9 inch ?) disks. It had a tape deck built in with
all the required software, of course. It came with line numbered BASIC
but you could upgrade to a structured BASIC which was quite nice and
very powerful. It ran several Hp peripherals including plotters and
printers.
Any notion that _all_ pre-IBM PCs were cheap, inferior toys is way
off the mark. IBM simply set a certain "standard" of price,
capabilities and features that others followed by creating endless
(usually much less costly) IBM PC clones.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Rick Merrill wrote:
>
>
>>I wrote the first "boot virus" for the PDP-11 in 1970 - it was a single
>>instruction that copied itself throughout memory when someone tried to
>>start the bootstrap loader!-)
>
>
> Ahh, So basically this is right up there with the magic HD destroying
> virus, the monitor explosion virus, etc... Which I suppose isn't that
> big of a deal. We tend to be straying from the topic tho.. Which was
> DRM last time I checked, not the "who's who" in virus history. :)
It WAS more like a 'prion' than a real 'virus'!-)
But it had a purpose and a delivery method. Someone was 'borrowing' the
computer at night, so i loaded this in the boot addy. They fired it once
and never came back! In fact, with memory full of 'it' any program that
jumped off into data space was easy to backtrack!
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> So fucking what? It's a PC, and there were viruses running wild on them
> years before Brain.
It's an Apple. The term PC means IBM pc, not apple, not amiga, not
commodore, but IBM and the clones there of. Your arguement and this
entire post of yours falls on its ass when you stay with the systems we
were originally talking about.
> Dude.... you SERIOUSLY need to put down the joint. This whole subthread
> was started and then polluted by history challenged knotheads claiming
> Brain was "the first virus". And of course those ultimately dishonest
> people who rewrite statements to fit their agenda when they're proven
> wrong.
I haven't rewritten anything, and this isn't a proving someone wrong
type of conversation for me, Like I said before, I'm retired. I
couldn't give a rats ass about who wrote what virus and when they did
it. It's all history to me. I don't however mis-lead people into
thinking PC meant apple, macnshit, amiga, etc. I didn't miss the mark,
you did.
> It's really more pathetic than anything else if you want to know the
> truth. A bunch of so called "informed" people being so damned narrow of
> mind they think MS-DOS is the beginning and ending of all civilization,
> and the 80x86 platform the only thing that ever existed prior to an eye
> blink ago.
Considering my first computer was a coco3, Your statement is indeed an
ignorant one to make. No amount of dancing you can do, and trying to
include systems you knew we weren't even talking about is going to
change anything. This is usenet, once again, nobody gives a shit at the
end of the day. I was discussing PC's, and for idiots like you, that
doesn't include the apple, the mac, the atari, the amiga, or the
coco's, or anything else that isn't IBM/clone, ok? Got it this time?
alt.comp.virus isn't for the support of atari, amiga, coco, commodore
virus issues. Had you read the fuckin FAQ, you could have easily stayed
withen the realm of reality. As far as IBM/clones are concerned, Brain
was the first widespread virus, period.
I could say I wrote a virus for the coco (which I did), but does that
make it the first? I don't think so. And since coco's weren't really
networked then, the virus had little chance of long term survival. I'm
not sure what bugs me the most, having to explain this shit to you, or
reading your fucked up history 101 of ancient junk by today's
standards. Joy to the 8bit microprocessor... Waaa... heh. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Apple made PC's, Apples had viruses running wild on them 5 years before
> Brain. Live with it. Or don't. Your tap dancing is good for a few laughs
> anyway.
So who's laughing? I mean, with you, not at you. Seems everything has
to be clarified for you. :)
Apple made Apples, they didn't make PCs in the sense it's used today,
and everybody knows this.
> I'm sorry, "primarily"? You can't even walk across the room to defend
> yourself without tripping over your own feet, now can you?
Are you aware of mac, amiga, coco, apple DRM software? Most DRM
programs/protocols are for restricting, PCs, ibm/clones. I take it you
haven't actually studied drm much eh? Tripping over my own feet? Lots o
laughs, kiddo, but that's not going to happen.
> Yup. Personal Computers, as in computers made for persons. As in Apples,
> Ataris, and even CP/M PL/M type critters dating back as far as the mid
> 70's. They're ALL PC's, each and every one of them. The IBM PC is only one
> flavor, that's why it has that "IBM" part in front of the "PC" thing for
> God's sake.
While I realize you seem to be stuck in memory lane with the 8bit
processors, try to understand the world has evolved since then, and PC
is a general term for an IBM compatable, not apple. Without the apple,
the amigas, etc, your argument (which is a silly one anyway) about the
first virus falls on it's face... So big deal, the viruses were talking
about are preserved in labs and/or diskettes or otherwise archived
likely never to see the light of day again.
> Waffling noted. First Apples aren't "PC's", now they're a "limited range"
> to work with.
I think you misunderstood, or you have a serious reading problem one...
I said the virus would have had a limited range and lifespan back then.
> You're pathetic.
weak name calling, noted. :) That's usually one of the first signs
that your on the losing end, if there was one.
> Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
> They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
> "PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
When you speak to someone in the computer field, and you say you have a
PC, do they assume it's an apple, an amiga or an ibm clone? It's a
really easy question.
> Whoops! There's that pesky "IBM" again.
Yes, there it is, in all it's glory. It's hard for you to stick with it
huh?
> Oh wait, not the first "PC Virus", the first ***IBM PC Virus***. There's
> that nasty little distinction biting you in your ass one more time for
> good measure.
A distinction you seem to be the one trying to make. :) Without it,
like your posts, and likely your personal life, it falls on it's ass.
Hmm....
> There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
> legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
Boring. IBM PC's are what is typically understood when you are
discussing PCs, not amiga, not the coco, not the apple.
> Here's one with pretty pictures and easy little chunks you MIGHT be able
> to keep up with....
Heh. If I can code in asm in my sleep, I'm sure I can keep up with a
site of your choosing. Oh wait, you didn't know that did you? :) Laugh
laugh. I used to be one of the people writing viruses for the PC (ibm)
platform, did you do any research before coming here and boasting of
your expertise in... ancient junk? No offense to the commies, cocos,
etc, but.. what's the point? You can't process real video data on
them... Not with any real expectation of getting it done in a
reasonable amount of time. And if I have to define reasonable as we
have with PC, it's truely a lost cause with you.
> Just beg again if you need more hand holding Cook. :)
I don't beg. and I don't think I need any hand holding, I've done
alright for myself without it. thanks all the same. Let me know when
you want to stay on a discussion, without resorting to petty name
calling, and changing the computer scene midgame. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
kurt wismer wrote:
> did you miss the 90's entirely? pc became synonymous with the ibm pc
> compatible computer a long time ago... apples, macs, amigas, ataris -
> they all did a pretty good job of resisting cloning but the ibm pc's
> clones were legion and they couldn't all be called ibm pc since they
> weren't made by ibm so the name was contracted to just pc...
They know this. Without the PC term including apple, etc, the argument
as pathetic as it is shows them to be asses. :) They need PC to include
a wide range of computer systems, without it, their argument simply
becomes hot air.
> i realize that it had another meaning before that, but nobody (not even
> apple computers) uses pc in the general personal computer meaning
> anymore - personal computers became the norm so 'personal computer'
> became a pointless distinction to make...
That's all well documented in computer history too, they seem to be
skipping those chapters in favor of labeling a PC anything. When's the
last time we had support for an amiga virus here? heh..
A serious question, has the quality of alt.comp.virus degraded so much
that we have assclowns all the time now? Trolls didn't used to be a big
deal. the other two groups crossposting too deal with security, hardly
apple/amiga stuff there either. So what gives?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Art wrote:
> The Hp desktop machine was very much like what IBM introduced
> later in many respects, but much better. For storage, it used a floppy
> drive with large (9 inch ?) disks. It had a tape deck built in with
> all the required software, of course. It came with line numbered BASIC
> but you could upgrade to a structured BASIC which was quite nice and
> very powerful. It ran several Hp peripherals including plotters and
> printers.
I remember this machine Art. It was very proprietary I recall. Then
again, the original IBM's were too.
> Any notion that _all_ pre-IBM PCs were cheap, inferior toys is way
> off the mark. IBM simply set a certain "standard" of price,
> capabilities and features that others followed by creating endless
> (usually much less costly) IBM PC clones.
I don't think anyone has said as much, Art. :)
What gets me tho is the fact someone (kurt) actually had to mention we
were talking about ibm/clones, specifically. The things you take for
granted eh?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I don't recall the original Apple II as being an ibm pc or
>
> Apple made PC's, Apples had viruses running wild on them 5 years before
> Brain. Live with it. Or don't. Your tap dancing is good for a few laughs
> anyway.
I don't know why people are so passionate about this, but you're
really pushing credibility here - you can genericize the term to make
it mean any personal computer, but that's far from common usage. "PC"
has almost always referred specifically to systems that trace design
back to the IBM PC.
In the pre-IBM PC days of the Apple II, *nobody* called these "PCs".
A Mac is a "PC" in your generic usage, but *nobody* would call a Mac a
"PC" with a straight face. You know, all that talk about "Mac vs. PC"
must be talking about something specific, don't you think?
And what does it mean when software is called "PC-compatible"? Does
it mean it works on any computer that happens to be used by one person?
Of course not.
I think everyone here knew what "PC" meant here when talking about "PC
viruses." Maybe you don't like that use of the word "PC", but you're
tilting at windmills.
Incidentally, the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary says:
PC (also pc), personal computer; spec. one that is IBM-compatible.
Note the "specifically" part...
--
Steve Stringer
sillybanter@gmail.com
TwistyCreek wrote:
> Oh brother!
I think you missed the point.
I could writeup a simplistic virus, assemble it and release it on one
of my lans here. Is it now, in the wild, since it's traveling on my
closed network?
Since the network is closed, only I will be able to see it's effects,
short of allowing someone to see the infected LAN. Now, say I expand
this lan to cover.. oh, 200 computers (ibm), is it in the wild yet?
Remember, only I know it's here, it's not able to leave the lan.... so
at one point does it become in the wild?
For it to become itw, it has to leave this lan and continue to spread
to other systems. Since nobody really trades floppies anymore, and even
when they did, it was a slow going itw process. Basically, in the 80s;
in the wild could have meant damn near anything.
> When I suggested Kurt revise history to include only "Network Viruses" so
> he could argue from an even more silly ass position, I never thought for a
> minute someone would be inane enough to actually make the attempt.
Oh, I dunno. You've made the attempt to compare copyright infringement
as being the same as stealing a wallet, and that PCs (we were talking
about ibm pcs) really mean any computer. Do you even have a position to
take on any of it? Or do you just wish to troll?
I'm looking forward to your answers regarding the wallet, but in case
you missed them, Copyright infringement can get you $250,000 in fines
and/or 5 years in federal prison. If you maintain these are one in the
same crimes according to the books, why don't wallet thieves get this
kind of punishment?
You can't steal information, you can copy it. The original doesn't
leave with you, duh. That's why the distinction.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
kurt wismer wrote:
> it's not a waffle, it's disambiguation... i figured the chances were low
Up until this very moment I hadn't realized it, but damned if script
kiddies and AV wannabes aren't cut from the same cloth. Neither one of you
can muster up the half a gonad it would take to just admit you're wrong.
You'll wet yourselves over the most ridiculous semantic nit pick in the
history of Usenet just to save yourselves the trouble.
Pathetic, but not at all uncommon for maturity challenged individuals
hiding behind keyboards. In fact Usenet is infested with your species.
Here's some MODERN definitions and a bunch of "timeline" stuff proving
what a cowardly little nincompoop you are. One of these was even
offered up by your script kiddie twin brother. Read, and weep boy.
http://www.library.nuigalway.ie/help/jargon/jargonm.html
PC - "Acronym for Personal Computer"
http://www.engin.com.au/public/tGlossary.asp
"PC: personal computer"
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
PC PC n. (Computers)
A personal computer; a computer designed for use by one person at a
time; -- contrasted with shared-time computers such as mainframes and
minicomputers, which may be accessed by multiple users each operating
from a different input device (in the 1990's, usually a terminal)."
WordNet (r) 2.0
PC
n : a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and designed to
be used by one person at a time syn: personal computer, microcomputer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
personal computer
n. Abbr. PC
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in
an office or at home or school.
> http://inventors.about.com/od/computerviruses/
Do you even READ your own cites?
> regularity are termed "in the wild." The first computer viruses were
> developed in the early 1980s. The first viruses found in the wild were
> Apple II viruses, such as Elk Cloner, which was reported in 1981
> [Den90]. Viruses have now been found on the following platforms:
>
> * Apple II
> * IBM PC
> * Macintosh
> * Atari
> * Amiga
>
> Note that all viruses found in the wild target personal computers. As of
Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
"PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
> *yawn*. Try to stay on topic next time eh? PC... not apple. Know thy
> difference :)
There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
http://www.pc-history.org
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pc.htm
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/1908p133id52503.htm
Here's one with pretty pictures and easy little chunks you MIGHT be able
to keep up with....
http://www.computer-museum.org/exhibits/pccomeshome/index.ht ml
http://www.rgross.de/epcstory.htm
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~bill/ramblings.html
http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>> So fucking what? It's a PC, and there were viruses running wild on them
>> years before Brain.
>
> It's an Apple. The term PC means IBM pc, not apple, not amiga, not
What a sniveling little wanker you are.
Miss this, did you? Or is it just too painful to reply to?
http://www.library.nuigalway.ie/help/jargon/jargonm.html
PC - "Acronym for Personal Computer"
http://www.engin.com.au/public/tGlossary.asp
"PC: personal computer"
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
PC PC n. (Computers)
A personal computer; a computer designed for use by one person at a
time; -- contrasted with shared-time computers such as mainframes and
minicomputers, which may be accessed by multiple users each operating
from a different input device (in the 1990's, usually a terminal)."
WordNet (r) 2.0
PC
n : a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and designed to
be used by one person at a time syn: personal computer, microcomputer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
personal computer
n. Abbr. PC
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in
an office or at home or school.
> http://inventors.about.com/od/computerviruses/
Do you even READ your own cites?
> regularity are termed "in the wild." The first computer viruses were
> developed in the early 1980s. The first viruses found in the wild were
> Apple II viruses, such as Elk Cloner, which was reported in 1981
> [Den90]. Viruses have now been found on the following platforms:
>
> * Apple II
> * IBM PC
> * Macintosh
> * Atari
> * Amiga
>
> Note that all viruses found in the wild target personal computers. As of
Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
"PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
> *yawn*. Try to stay on topic next time eh? PC... not apple. Know thy
> difference :)
There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
http://www.pc-history.org
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pc.htm
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/1908p133id52503.htm
Here's one with pretty pictures and easy little chunks you MIGHT be able
to keep up with....
http://www.computer-museum.org/exhibits/pccomeshome/index.ht ml
http://www.rgross.de/epcstory.htm
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~bill/ramblings.html
http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html
"Sebastian Gottschalk"
> edgewalker wrote:
>
> > He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
> > from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
> > amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
>
> So what's up with free software?
If the software is intended to be free (as in free beer) then there is no expected
revenue for the author to be deprived of - and so no theft.
> > Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
> > want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
> > tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
>
> The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully
> intended by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
Yes, the theft is of monies expected from the sale of the software, just as the
identity theft is of depriving monies to the owners, not depriving them of their
identities.
edgewalker wrote:
>>> He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
>>> from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
>>> amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
>> So what's up with free software?
>
> If the software is intended to be free (as in free beer) then there is no expected
> revenue for the author to be deprived of - and so no theft.
So, and with what constitutional rights do you expect money for simple bits?
>>> Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
>>> want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
>>> tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
>> The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully
>> intended by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
>
> Yes, the theft is of monies expected from the sale of the software,
Again: There's no base for such an expectation.
> just as the identity theft is of depriving monies to the owners,
That's why it's not called theft, but impersonation fraud. And well,
this is usually the failure of the authentication method.
On 23 May 2006 09:21:53 -0700, "Dustin Cook"
>> Any notion that _all_ pre-IBM PCs were cheap, inferior toys is way
>> off the mark. IBM simply set a certain "standard" of price,
>> capabilities and features that others followed by creating endless
>> (usually much less costly) IBM PC clones.
>
>I don't think anyone has said as much, Art. :)
Nope. I just threw in my experience with a desktop called a PC by Hp
as a matter of historical interest. There was something amusing about
referring to a $50,000 machine as a _personal_ computer, as if most
anyone could afford one for use at home :)
>What gets me tho is the fact someone (kurt) actually had to mention we
>were talking about ibm/clones, specifically. The things you take for
>granted eh?
When nothing productive, interesting or educational is involved,
I just delete the posts. I've got far more interesting things to do
than bicker back and forth on newsgroups.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
> > it's not a waffle, it's disambiguation... i figured the chances were low
>
>
>
> Up until this very moment I hadn't realized it, but damned if script
> kiddies and AV wannabes aren't cut from the same cloth. Neither one of you
> can muster up the half a gonad it would take to just admit you're wrong.
Script kiddies and AV wannabes? I don't think you know what either of
those actually means. I don't qualify for either of them. None of my
work was script based, nice try tho.
Kurt certainly doesn't qualify for a script kiddy, and I don't
personally view him as an AV wannabe either. You know what's really
funny? The Avers didn't even call me a script kiddy, I didn't write
macros. You know whats even sadder? Macro viruses are probably beyond
your comprehension too.
We are not wrong in the sense as far as IBM pcs are concerned, Brain
was credited as being the first. This is what we stayed on topic about
from the getgo, You on the other hand feel the need to include ancient
machines and claim they are PCs as people know them today, and that's
not the case. Another poster commented on your credibility taking a
nose dive, I feel he's late in the comment; You'd have to have
credibility to begin with.
> Pathetic, but not at all uncommon for maturity challenged individuals
> hiding behind keyboards. In fact Usenet is infested with your species.
Hiding behind keyboards? Pot-kettle-black, We're posting with our real
names, and what are you posting with? Yea, I didn't think so.
Usenet is infested with persons like yourself, you think you know alot
more then you actually do. It's alright, I've seen your type before, no
doubt destroyed alot of data from your type of person. I do however
doubt my viruses destroyed the data alone, I suspect ehm recovery
methods employed by some did far more harm.
> Here's some MODERN definitions and a bunch of "timeline" stuff proving
> what a cowardly little nincompoop you are. One of these was even
> offered up by your script kiddie twin brother. Read, and weep boy.
I suppose at this point script kiddie should offend me eh? It doesn't.
I know what I wrote, so do thousands of other people. Your on the
losing side of this one. :)
I suppose next you'll tell me BugHunter is some kind of script program.
Laugh laugh.
> Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
> They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
> "PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
Are you sure you don't have a reading problem yourself? IBM/clones are
understood to be what your discussing when you mention PC. Do you know
why they call it mac vs PC wars? It's a rhetorical question. :)
> There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
> legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
And they are the only type of PC of any interest here, as you keep
having to be told.
Your argument was weak to begin with, resorting to petty name calling
only furthers that.
Come back when you know what the hell your talking about, ok?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>> Apple made PC's, Apples had viruses running wild on them 5 years before
>> Brain. Live with it. Or don't. Your tap dancing is good for a few laughs
>> anyway.
>
> So who's laughing?
Me. At anally fixated youngsters who would rather look like complete
asstards than suffer through the ego shattering process of simply
admitting their argument is broken by modern definition, as well as
history.
> I mean, with you, not at you. Seems everything has to
> be clarified for you. :)
By "clairified" I suppose you're talking about snipping actual cites
INCLUDING your own when it went south on you, and then waiving your arms
around and chanting "doesn't mean that" like a parrot with Tourette
Syndrome?
>
> Apple made Apples, they didn't make PCs in the sense it's used today, and
> everybody knows this.
Obviously the people who write the definitions disagree with the script
kiddies.
Sucks, don't it?
>> I'm sorry, "primarily"? You can't even walk across the room to defend
>> yourself without tripping over your own feet, now can you?
>
> Are you aware of mac, amiga, coco, apple DRM software? Most DRM
> programs/protocols are for restricting, PCs, ibm/clones. I take it you
Yes. MOST. IOW your "DRM" wriggle fails miserably because DRM isn't even
limited to PC's at all if we get right down to it.
>> Waffling noted. First Apples aren't "PC's", now they're a "limited
>> range" to work with.
>
> I think you misunderstood, or you have a serious reading problem one... I
> said the virus would have had a limited range and lifespan back then.
They have a limited range and lifespan NOW. Your pathetic attempt to win
a point by rewriting the rules yet AGAIN with "didn't spread as far" only
makes you look like a strawgrabbing asstard whose PROUD of it.
>
>> You're pathetic.
>
> weak name calling, noted. :) That's usually one of the first signs
> that your on the losing end, if there was one.
Pathetic isn't a name, it's a quality. And it describes your life
perfectly, even long before this little fiasco.
Maybe it's this lack of literary skills that's causing the rest of your
comprehension problems?
>> Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
>> They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
>> "PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
>
> When you speak to someone in the computer field, and you say you have a
> PC, do they assume it's an apple, an amiga or an ibm clone? It's a really
> easy question.
Gee, I dunno, let me ask myself since I'm the admin and senior IT
professional overseeing a network of 311 (as of this morning) PC's, 97 of
which are Mac's.
Or maybe I should ask myself because I've worked in and/or owned and
operated 3 different "PC Repair" businesses that dealt with Macs in
addition to IBM Compatibles (the PROPER terminology).
Or maybe I should ask myself because I designed, built, installed, and
administered a 34 workstation Publishing House network that was almost
nothing BUT Apple PC's.
You claim I'M stuck in some sort of myopic little world?
It's YOU who can't see beyond the end of your pimply protruding nose, boy.
It's YOU stuck in your own little universe, centered around Usenet, the
only place there's enough adolescent ankle biters around to stroke your
pathetic ego. The people who are out there every day actually WORKING
for a living in the real world are laughing at you and your idiotic "IBM
is the only PC because I'm a big bad script kiddie" stupidity.
>> Whoops! There's that pesky "IBM" again.
>
> Yes, there it is, in all it's glory. It's hard for you to stick with it
> huh?
Especially when it's not there.
>> Oh wait, not the first "PC Virus", the first ***IBM PC Virus***.
>> There's that nasty little distinction biting you in your ass one more
>> time for good measure.
>
> A distinction you seem to be the one trying to make. :) Without it, like
> your posts, and likely your personal life, it falls on it's ass. Hmm....
ROTFL! Coming from a liar, an admitted thief, an adolescent coward who
snips even his OWN cites rather than deal with them, and a 6th rate hack
even by script kiddie standards, that's moderately amusing.
I own two homes, free an clear, three cars an RV and a motorcycle, all
paid for. I've been happily married for 22 years and raised 3 children who
have blessed me with 2 grandchildren.
You live in your father's basement with a plastic blow up doll
masturbating over old printouts of Phrack and fantasizing about being
noteworthy.
>> There isn't any dimbulb, IBM PC's are only one type of PC. And any
>> legitimate "history of the PC" starts long before they surfaced....
>
> Boring. IBM PC's are what is typically understood when you are discussing
> PCs, not amiga, not the coco, not the apple.
There ya' go son, when faced with the truth in its undeniable glory call
it "boring" and keep trying to change the subject.
That's why you'll always be a total loser.
>> Here's one with pretty pictures and easy little chunks you MIGHT be able
>> to keep up with....
>
> Heh. If I can code in asm in my sleep, I'm sure I can keep up with a site
I was hacking MACHINE LANGUAGE before you were born sonny. I STILL work on
that level part time, coding for equipment you couldn't even comprehend.
You're as impressive as a pussy fart in a wind storm in my world. I've
seen your "work" and it's sloppy, amateurish, broken most of the time, and
nothing but pathetic dick waiving to begin with.
You're a 6th rate hack of a coder with the attitude of a nine year old.
You always have been, and you always will be. I spanked your little behind
WAYYYYYYY back in your "heyday", and I'll kick you twice as hard today if
you test me.
>> Just beg again if you need more hand holding Cook. :)
>
> I don't beg.
Get off your knees and wipe your chin then boy. Your "not begging" is
embarrassing when you do it in public.
> and I don't think I need any hand holding,
That's what every 4 year old says right before they run out in the street
and get flattened by a bus.
sillybanter wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
> wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm, I don't recall the original Apple II as being an ibm pc or
>>
>> Apple made PC's, Apples had viruses running wild on them 5 years before
>> Brain. Live with it. Or don't. Your tap dancing is good for a few laughs
>> anyway.
>
> I don't know why people are so passionate about this, but you're really
> pushing credibility here - you can genericize the term to make it mean any
> personal computer, but that's far from common usage.
Maybe to 14 year old boys who spend way too much time in front of a TV and
way to LITTLE time in school, but to the VAST majority of the world
including Webster and Worldnet you're completely full of shit.
http://www.library.nuigalway.ie/help/jargon/jargonm.html
PC - "Acronym for Personal Computer"
http://www.engin.com.au/public/tGlossary.asp
"PC: personal computer"
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
PC PC n. (Computers)
A personal computer; a computer designed for use by one person at a
time; -- contrasted with shared-time computers such as mainframes and
minicomputers, which may be accessed by multiple users each operating
from a different input device (in the 1990's, usually a terminal)."
WordNet (r) 2.0
PC
n : a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and designed to
be used by one person at a time syn: personal computer, microcomputer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
personal computer
n. Abbr. PC
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in
an office or at home or school.
> In the pre-IBM PC days of the Apple II, *nobody* called these "PCs". A
You were OBVIOUSLY born in the 80's. Maybe even the 90's. Even BEFORE
the Apple II we called our Heathkits and Altairs "PC's". The term was
coined in the 60's when the powers that be came up with the IDEA of
personal use machines to alleviate "overcrowding" on mainframes.
You history lesson is also reheated and re-served....
http://www.pc-history.org
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/pc.htm
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/1908p133id52503.htm
http://www.computer-museum.org/exhibits/pccomeshome/index.ht ml
http://www.rgross.de/epcstory.htm
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~bill/ramblings.html
http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html
> Mac is a "PC" in your generic usage, but *nobody* would call a Mac a
> "PC" with a straight face. You know, all that talk about "Mac vs. PC"
You have OBVIOUSLY never been out in the real world, in an office or other
environment where everything is a "PC". Including a whole lot of other
equipment that really has nothing at all to do with "personal computers"
like dedicated word processors and dictation machines, and special use
industrial controllers like those on some CNC machines.
> must be talking about something specific, don't you think?
Yup. Smallish, often portable, digital, general use computing devices
designed for single users and labeled with ANY company logo.
> And what does it mean when software is called "PC-compatible"? Does it
> mean it works on any computer that happens to be used by one person? Of
> course not.
And you believe marketing slogans and misnomers are relevant exactly HOW
again?
Like I though, you watch WAY too much TV.
> I think everyone here knew what "PC" meant here when talking about "PC
> viruses." Maybe you don't like that use of the word "PC", but you're
> tilting at windmills.
I'm being technically accurate. Whether or not that flies in the face of
every self professed "expert" on Usenet is irrelevant. I've stated my case
and backed it up with facts and a preponderance of the evidence. If you
have a problem with that, I guess you'll just have to get some practice
dealing with your problems, huh?
> Incidentally, the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary says:
>
> PC (also pc), personal computer; spec. one that is IBM-compatible.
>
> Note the "specifically" part...
I dunno what Oxford you're using but mine says absolutely nothing of the
sort. Nor does Webster's or Worldnet.
Maybe the drunks that published the version you salvaged from a fire were
falling into the same trap our local script kiddie and wannabe AV "guru"
are, best explained here...
"The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03)"
personal computer
designed to be operated by one person at a time.
This term and the concept has been successfully hijacked by
IBM due to the huge market share of the IBM PC, despite
its many obvious weaknesses when compared to other equally
valid claimants to the term, e.g. the Acorn Archimedes,
Amiga, Atari, Macintosh.
I wonder, did you just decide to make shit up as you go you little sneak?
;)
Art wrote:
> Nope. I just threw in my experience with a desktop called a PC by Hp
> as a matter of historical interest. There was something amusing about
> referring to a $50,000 machine as a _personal_ computer, as if most
> anyone could afford one for use at home :)
Ah well. The term personal computer for a single user doesn't apply for
most IBM clones anymore. Our self proclaimed expert should know that.
Hey, what would I know tho, according to him, I'm a script kiddy. :)
> When nothing productive, interesting or educational is involved,
> I just delete the posts. I've got far more interesting things to do
> than bicker back and forth on newsgroups.
A point well taken. Speaking of far more interesting things to do, I
need to rip (er, copyright infringe) a few movies today.
Always a pleasure Art,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>> > it's not a waffle, it's disambiguation... i figured the chances were
>> > low
>>
>>
>>
>> Up until this very moment I hadn't realized it, but damned if script
>> kiddies and AV wannabes aren't cut from the same cloth. Neither one of
>> you can muster up the half a gonad it would take to just admit you're
>> wrong.
>
> Script kiddies and AV wannabes?
Is there an echo in here?
What have YOU ever done that's even moderately interesting except snatch
someone else's ideas and claim they're your own?
Nothing, that's what.
What has Your twin brother ever done but run his mouth and collect links?
What of any significance have either ONE of you ever contributed to
anything?
Zilch. Nada. Zero.
> Kurt certainly doesn't qualify for a script kiddy, and I don't personally
The "views" of a script kiddie thief trying to justify his failed
existence means nothing at all to me. You're a poser. A nobody with a
criminal background that he "earned" by copying other criminal's work.
> view him as an AV wannabe either. You know what's really funny? The
Yeah. Monkeys like you trying to fuck your semantical football quibbles.
> Avers didn't even call me a script kiddy, I didn't write macros. You
That's because you ran like a coward from most of them. You didn't have
the balls to stand around long enough to admit you heard WHAT they called
you. You were too busy hiding behind the skirts of your ass grabbing
criminal buddies.
> know whats even sadder? Macro viruses are probably beyond your
> comprehension too.
ROTFLMAO!
I'll match MY skills and knowledge against YOURS any day, any time, any
place. I've been hammering out everything from line counts to little hacks
since before you were out of diapers, and I have a paper pedigree you and
Kurt couldn't attain if you put what's left of your feeble minds together
and squared it.
> We are not wrong in the sense as far as IBM pcs are concerned, Brain was
Oh looky, you can't even defend yourself without adding that little "IBM"
on the frond of your "PC" argument, now can you?
>> Pathetic, but not at all uncommon for maturity challenged individuals
>> hiding behind keyboards. In fact Usenet is infested with your species.
>
> Hiding behind keyboards? Pot-kettle-black, We're posting with our real
> names, and what are you posting with? Yea, I didn't think so.
You're missing the point entirely. But then that's not at all unusual for
people hiding behind a keyboard either.
> Usenet is infested with persons like yourself, you think you know alot
> more then you actually do. It's alright, I've seen your type before, no
And always remembered it by the stinging sensation on your rear end.
> doubt destroyed alot of data from your type of person. I do however
> doubt my viruses destroyed the data alone, I suspect ehm recovery
> methods employed by some did far more harm.
Puff your little criminal chest out all you want. What's REALLY funny
about the whole thing is the fact that nothing you've ever done has cose
me or anyone around me a single nybble of data. You really aren't as
clever as you think you are.
>> Here's some MODERN definitions and a bunch of "timeline" stuff proving
>> what a cowardly little nincompoop you are. One of these was even
>> offered up by your script kiddie twin brother. Read, and weep boy.
>
> I suppose at this point script kiddie should offend me eh? It doesn't. I
That's because you know it's true. You can't take offense to what you
truly are, you just have to LIVE with it.
> know what I wrote, so do thousands of other people. Your on the losing
> side of this one. :)
"I WIN! I WIN!"
"I WIN! I WIN!"
"I WIN! I WIN"
You're pathetic.
> I suppose next you'll tell me BugHunter is some kind of script program.
> Laugh laugh.
It's an amateurish piece of crap that can't even do half of what it
claims, let alone 1/3 of what it COULD do if it were managed by a
competent coder.
>
>> Good fucking GRIEF! The first "in the wild" viruses were
>> They've "now been found" on a bunch of platforms, but they ALL target
>> "PERSONAL COMPUTERS".
>
> Are you sure you don't have a reading problem yourself? IBM/clones are
I spotted the HUGE contradiction in your own cite, and you missed it.
Who has the reading problem here sonny?
LOL!
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>> Oh brother!
>
> I think you missed the point.
I think you missed grades 3 through 12.
>
> I could writeup a simplistic virus, assemble it and release it on one of
> my lans here. Is it now, in the wild, since it's traveling on my closed
> network?
No you strawgrabbing adolescent, and that's not the scenario regarding
Apple PC viruses that were in the wild FIVE YEARS before Brain.
>> When I suggested Kurt revise history to include only "Network Viruses"
>> so he could argue from an even more silly ass position, I never thought
>> for a minute someone would be inane enough to actually make the attempt.
>
> Oh, I dunno. You've made the attempt to compare copyright infringement as
> being the same as stealing a wallet, and that PCs (we were talking about
> ibm pcs) really mean any computer.
ROTFLMAO!
How deliciously pathetic!
Please DO amuse me to no end by quoting a single post where anyone said
"PC" meant "all computers".
> Do you even have a position to take on
> any of it? Or do you just wish to troll?
My position is you're wrong, and a pathetic little weasel who lacks even
half the guts it takes to admit it. You're so pathetic you'll make
yourself look like a complete village IDIOT just to avoid it.
And I've posted a whole mess of definitions and timelines to prove it,
loser. :)
>
> I'm looking forward to your answers regarding the wallet, but in case you
Been there, done that. Your thread following skills bus be somewhere
beneath your credibility and maturity.
"edgewalker"
>"Sebastian Gottschalk"
>> edgewalker wrote:
>>
>> > He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could expect
>> > from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software
>> > amounts to the theft of at least some of that revenue.
>>
>> So what's up with free software?
>If the software is intended to be free (as in free beer) then there is no expected
>revenue for the author to be deprived of - and so no theft.
There is no theft in either case. Loss of expected revenue is NOT theft (
or Starbucks would have committed theft from thousands of coffee shops all
over the world. ) "Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software"
is copyright infringment, which is something different from theft, it is
the violation of a monopoly granted by the state. (It is like people who
supplied tea in Britain who were not granted the monopoly on tea trade by the
king.)
>> > Being a 'ripper' (and former virus writer) himself, I can see why he would
>> > want to hide behind the wording of law and ignore the intent of law. He
>> > tries to rationalize his way out of thinking of himself as the thief that he is.
That is because he is not a thief, anymore that someone who speeds is a
thief. He may have broken a law ( civil in many cases) but not all laws are
laws on theft.
>>
>> The difference between copyright infringement and theft is fully
>> intended by the law makers. That's why it's written as it is.
>Yes, the theft is of monies expected from the sale of the software, just as the
>identity theft is of depriving monies to the owners, not depriving them of their
>identities.
Deprivation of expected sales is NOT a crime. In fact it is encouraged in
most western countries under the ruberic of "competition".
Copyright infringement may be a crime, or a civil tort depending on the
jurisdiction. Ie, If I infringe your copyright I may have harmed you but
you, not the state, are responsible for prosecuting that and you may or may
not be granted damages. That is far different from theft, where a) it is
the state that prosecutes, and b) you as the victim are not granted any
damages even if the thief is convicted.
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
>
>> The Hp desktop machine was very much like what IBM introduced later in
>> many respects, but much better. For storage, it used a floppy drive with
>> large (9 inch ?) disks. It had a tape deck built in with all the
>> required software, of course. It came with line numbered BASIC but you
>> could upgrade to a structured BASIC which was quite nice and very
>> powerful. It ran several Hp peripherals including plotters and printers.
>
> I remember this machine Art. It was very proprietary I recall. Then again,
> the original IBM's were too.
>
>> Any notion that _all_ pre-IBM PCs were cheap, inferior toys is way off
>> the mark. IBM simply set a certain "standard" of price, capabilities and
>> features that others followed by creating endless (usually much less
>> costly) IBM PC clones.
>
> I don't think anyone has said as much, Art. :)
>
> What gets me tho is the fact someone (kurt) actually had to mention we
> were talking about ibm/clones, specifically. The things you take for
> granted eh?
That might be true, right up to the point someone started a subthread
about viruses and someone made the false claim that Brain was the "first
wild virus ever".
Unruh wrote:
> There is no theft in either case. Loss of expected revenue is NOT theft (
> or Starbucks would have committed theft from thousands of coffee shops all
> over the world. ) "Giving away unauthorized free copies of said software"
Not to mention Xerox. Just think of all the theft people have commited
with them. :)
> is copyright infringment, which is something different from theft, it is
> the violation of a monopoly granted by the state. (It is like people who
> supplied tea in Britain who were not granted the monopoly on tea trade by the
> king.)
Alas, your wasting your time me thinks. Some individuals can't
comprehend the difference.
> That is because he is not a thief, anymore that someone who speeds is a
> thief. He may have broken a law ( civil in many cases) but not all laws are
> laws on theft.
Again, I think it's a lost cause....
> Deprivation of expected sales is NOT a crime. In fact it is encouraged in
> most western countries under the ruberic of "competition".
HEHE...
> Copyright infringement may be a crime, or a civil tort depending on the
> jurisdiction. Ie, If I infringe your copyright I may have harmed you but
> you, not the state, are responsible for prosecuting that and you may or may
> not be granted damages. That is far different from theft, where a) it is
> the state that prosecutes, and b) you as the victim are not granted any
> damages even if the thief is convicted.
Makes sense, expect some verbal chants coming your way from them, with
some lame ass kiddy name calling following suit. It's a very impressive
show.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
TwistyCreek wrote:
> Is there an echo in here?
Must be...
> What have YOU ever done that's even moderately interesting except snatch
> someone else's ideas and claim they're your own?
Which ideas have I claimed are mine? Can you be specific?
> What has Your twin brother ever done but run his mouth and collect links?
I don't have a twin.
> The "views" of a script kiddie thief trying to justify his failed
> existence means nothing at all to me. You're a poser. A nobody with a
> criminal background that he "earned" by copying other criminal's work.
Well, first of all, I never scripted. Second, I've infringed
copyrights, and that's all, hardly theft in any rational thinking
persons eyes. Third, what other criminals work did I copy? I didn't
have source code to follow with regard to writing the ones I wrote. You
said you've seen my work, you should have known that. Were you BSing
about that too?
> > view him as an AV wannabe either. You know what's really funny? The
>
> Yeah. Monkeys like you trying to fuck your semantical football quibbles.
A fine use of words from such an articulate person such as yourself,
Please do show us more of your wit.
> That's because you ran like a coward from most of them. You didn't have
> the balls to stand around long enough to admit you heard WHAT they called
I ran like a coward from who specifically? Hmm... Fork some names,
please.
> I'll match MY skills and knowledge against YOURS any day, any time, any
> place. I've been hammering out everything from line counts to little hacks
> since before you were out of diapers, and I have a paper pedigree you and
> Kurt couldn't attain if you put what's left of your feeble minds together
> and squared it.
Good for you. You have papers to show you can remember information from
a book and pick the correct answer. Would you like a cookie? With such
a long standing paper pedigree, one would assume? that you would be
able to use more advanced words then sexual innuedo? No? Hmm... Maybe
those papers aren't worth the paper they are printed on then.
> Oh looky, you can't even defend yourself without adding that little "IBM"
> on the frond of your "PC" argument, now can you?
I didn't add it on the front of the argument, it was already there. You
seem to have missed the boat however.
> You're missing the point entirely. But then that's not at all unusual for
> people hiding behind a keyboard either.
What point is it I'm missing exactly? I post with my real name, you do
not. Is there something i'm missing?
> Puff your little criminal chest out all you want. What's REALLY funny
> about the whole thing is the fact that nothing you've ever done has cose
Is that what bothers you so much? In your eyes I'm a criminal, a bad
dude eh? heh.. It's laughable. Why does it bother you so much? Do you
get this annoyed with people who speed past you on the road as well?
> That's because you know it's true. You can't take offense to what you
> truly are, you just have to LIVE with it.
I can't take offense to someone obviously talking from his ass with the
sole intent of getting a rise, no. Your factually off base on the
script kiddy remarks. We've already seen what semantics do to you. :)
> It's an amateurish piece of crap that can't even do half of what it
> claims, let alone 1/3 of what it COULD do if it were managed by a
> competent coder.
So your going to list what it claims it can do that it cannot then,
right? And your next going to tell me what a competent coder could do
that I have not done right? See, that's the mess you've placed yourself
into. BugHunter is available for anyone to test it, I've kept most of
the samples used in it's database, and other well regarded programs can
verify they are what they claim to be.
So now, I wait for your proof of these claims. Don't worry about your
credibility, you don't have any to lose, but I do want to have some fun
with you. Thanks for inviting it. :)
> Who has the reading problem here sonny?
I don't think it's me, I knew when the word PC was mentioned what
specific platforms we were including. Kurt felt you needed to be told.
:) a few others have also felt the need to enlighten you. Perhaps you
should take a closer look in the mirror.
> LOL!
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't you smiling?
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > What gets me tho is the fact someone (kurt) actually had to mention we
> > were talking about ibm/clones, specifically. The things you take for
> > granted eh?
>
> That might be true, right up to the point someone started a subthread
> about viruses and someone made the false claim that Brain was the "first
> wild virus ever".
first wild virus ever... and you can post which one of us made such a
bold claim? Word for word, right?
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Yes. MOST. IOW your "DRM" wriggle fails miserably because DRM isn't even
> limited to PC's at all if we get right down to it.
So you have a list then of non IBM pc drm software do you? DRM,
specifically, not some old fashioned 80s copy protection routine. You
do know the difference, right?
> They have a limited range and lifespan NOW. Your pathetic attempt to win
> a point by rewriting the rules yet AGAIN with "didn't spread as far" only
> makes you look like a strawgrabbing asstard whose PROUD of it.
a limited range do they? Your right, global is rather limiting isn't
it?
/sarcasm
> Gee, I dunno, let me ask myself since I'm the admin and senior IT
> professional overseeing a network of 311 (as of this morning) PC's, 97 of
> which are Mac's.
Great. Here we go with the dick size comparisons. :)
> Or maybe I should ask myself because I've worked in and/or owned and
> operated 3 different "PC Repair" businesses that dealt with Macs in
> addition to IBM Compatibles (the PROPER terminology).
The proper terminology according to you, you mean.
> Or maybe I should ask myself because I designed, built, installed, and
> administered a 34 workstation Publishing House network that was almost
> nothing BUT Apple PC's.
what did you design exactly? the cabling? :) what did you build?...
heh..
> It's YOU who can't see beyond the end of your pimply protruding nose, boy.
> It's YOU stuck in your own little universe, centered around Usenet, the
> only place there's enough adolescent ankle biters around to stroke your
> pathetic ego. The people who are out there every day actually WORKING
> for a living in the real world are laughing at you and your idiotic "IBM
> is the only PC because I'm a big bad script kiddie" stupidity.
You've clearly demonstrated that you are talking from your ass, and
have been for some time with regard to what you know of me. It's a well
known fact I'm in the IT field and have been for a long time. I'm not
going to bore people with my credentials, except to say that 311 you
said? isn't something I'd personally brag about. It's small. :)
Why did you need to own 3 businesses? Were you that incompetent?
> ROTFL! Coming from a liar, an admitted thief, an adolescent coward who
> snips even his OWN cites rather than deal with them, and a 6th rate hack
> even by script kiddie standards, that's moderately amusing.
An admitted thief? Are you making definitions up as you go? Again, it's
a rhetorical question.
> I own two homes, free an clear, three cars an RV and a motorcycle, all
> paid for. I've been happily married for 22 years and raised 3 children who
> have blessed me with 2 grandchildren.
And I suppose I should be impressed by this right? motorcycles are
cheap here, one can be had for under 5k easily, I have more then that
in the engine in one of vans. I own a few rides myself, paid for, with
my own money. I splurge a bit tho, I like fast cars and trucks.
> You live in your father's basement with a plastic blow up doll
> masturbating over old printouts of Phrack and fantasizing about being
> noteworthy.
Actually, I live in a 2 story house with a fully furnished basement,
paid for, as with everything else I own. Mommy and Daddy don't live
here, just me, and some computers. :)
Btw, I'm 28 years old, hardly a kid, but thanks anyway. :)
> There ya' go son, when faced with the truth in its undeniable glory call
> it "boring" and keep trying to change the subject.
trying to change the subject? Now your just being anal. I haven't tried
to declare a thief=copyright infringer, I know the difference.
> I was hacking MACHINE LANGUAGE before you were born sonny. I STILL work on
> that level part time, coding for equipment you couldn't even comprehend.
CNC machines and the like? Plasma cutters? What specifically is it you
do that I couldn't comprehend?
> You're as impressive as a pussy fart in a wind storm in my world. I've
> seen your "work" and it's sloppy, amateurish, broken most of the time, and
> nothing but pathetic dick waiving to begin with.
I wouldn't be surprised if your world is a lonely place... :)
> You're a 6th rate hack of a coder with the attitude of a nine year old.
> You always have been, and you always will be. I spanked your little behind
> WAYYYYYYY back in your "heyday", and I'll kick you twice as hard today if
> you test me.
Sure you did. and I've met the president. :)
Put down the crackpipe, it's ruining whats left of your feeble mind.
Dustin Cook wrote:
> Ah well. The term personal computer for a single user doesn't apply for
> most IBM clones anymore. Our self proclaimed expert should know that. Hey,
> what would I know tho, according to him, I'm a script kiddy. :)
People have been calling you a script kiddie since FIDO days. Does the
name Peter Ross mean anything to you?
Of course it does Dustin.
Should we start a crash course in the history of your on line life now?
Dredge up all the times you got horribly spanked by the AV and VX
communities alike? Revisit you whining to even the VX community about how
31337 you were, just like you're doing now?
Let's see, how did one poster put it.....
"Trying to gain respect by admitting that you have been the
source of other people's grief is a mistake. FIDO is not
another IRC."
Remember who that was Dustin? Wasn't that long ago at all.
It's a *perfect* description of your entire on line existence. You wrote
mostly unremarkable junk and hung out in places where your clueless
criminal comrades would pat you on the back for it. Every time you tried
to hang out somewhere that might give you a facade of respectability you
were put down like an old, arthritic dog. Sometimes not so mercifully.
You haven't changed one nit since you first started pestering your
superiors for recognition. You're still just a little kid wishing in one
hand to be something useful or memorable, and crapping in the other with
your "I'm a way cool outlaw" tripe.
It truly *is* pathetic Dustin, as much today as it was years ago. :(
TwistyCreek wrote:
> People have been calling you a script kiddie since FIDO days. Does the
> name Peter Ross mean anything to you?
Not really. Should it?
> Should we start a crash course in the history of your on line life now?
> Dredge up all the times you got horribly spanked by the AV and VX
Horribly spanked by av? HAHAHAHA. Man... I don't think any avers would
agree with that. I wasn't that evil you know. :)
> communities alike? Revisit you whining to even the VX community about how
> 31337 you were, just like you're doing now?
How l33t I am? I think your putting words in my mouth and/or reading
something I haven't written.
> "Trying to gain respect by admitting that you have been the
> source of other people's grief is a mistake. FIDO is not
> another IRC."
I'm aware of the statement. I wasn't trying to gain respect by
admitting something I've done, however. You'd do good to read the whole
thread, if you can.
I don't think it's clear to you yet, so let me try and make it so. I
don't concern myself with respect from individuals I do not know.
Respect is something earned, depending on your like/dislike for viral
code, I either have or have not ones respect. Either way, it doesn't
factor into anything tangible.
> It's a *perfect* description of your entire on line existence. You wrote
> mostly unremarkable junk and hung out in places where your clueless
> criminal comrades would pat you on the back for it. Every time you tried
Virus writing isn't a criminal act in the united states. Release with
malicious intent is. A keen distinction far too many either don't get,
or don't want to admit. Virus writing is protected by the constitution
in this country. mostly unremarkable junk is simply an opinion from..
an outsider ? I can't think of much in the virus scene that was
actually remarkable, and generally speaking, most/all of it was junk
when compared to other software.
You could save yourself some time and embarrasement by reading Sarah
Gordon's papers on virus writers. You remind me of a person I met on
temerc.com, he tends to drop names and claim he knows this or that
person.. He's even tried it with me, but I do not know him, I've never
spoken to him or exchanged code, whatever. He's read some about my
former activities and posted with the idea he had real knowledge on me,
similiar to yourself.
> to hang out somewhere that might give you a facade of respectability you
> were put down like an old, arthritic dog. Sometimes not so mercifully.
> You haven't changed one nit since you first started pestering your
> superiors for recognition. You're still just a little kid wishing in one
Pestering my superiors? The ones in jail you mean? :) You know nothing
of vxers or ex vxers, we dont have superiors, it's a looseknit
community. Go read some other book about us. :)
> hand to be something useful or memorable, and crapping in the other with
> your "I'm a way cool outlaw" tripe.
What the hell makes you think that anyway?
> It truly *is* pathetic Dustin, as much today as it was years ago. :(
You know whats even more pathetic? That I made such an impression on
you that you can't let it go. :) Are you that impressionable? I think
you are.
For you and a friend or two, copyright infringement is theft, I'm a
script kiddy, kurt is an av wannabe, and when we were discussing PC
viruses, everybody but yourself and a friend or two (several have
pointed out various errors now in your thinking) decided to sidestep,
and discuss systems outside of what the intent was, to prove some kind
of point? Their isn't anything really to prove. We don't care simply
about your apple's history withen the realm of the discussion. We were
talking about IBM compatibles...
I personally had no clue somebody even needed to actually type it, but
apparently, for people with the mental conditions you obviously do have
(getting help?) it had to be said... Such a sad state of affairs.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
TwistyCreek wrote:
[snip]
> Should we start a crash course in the history of your on line life now?
lets not... some things just don't bear repeating, no matter how much
you may dislike a person...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Dustin Cook wrote:
[snip]
> A serious question, has the quality of alt.comp.virus degraded so much
> that we have assclowns all the time now?
degraded? i guess you're forgetting he who cannot be named... most of
these 'people' are a flash in the pan by comparison...
> Trolls didn't used to be a big
> deal. the other two groups crossposting too deal with security, hardly
> apple/amiga stuff there either. So what gives?
well, once upon a time we had an official clown maker... making the
label official seemed to be of great benefit... among other things it
reduced the need to protect the newbies from their ravings when they
were clearly marked as being non-credible...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> it's not a waffle, it's disambiguation... i figured the chances were low
>
>
>
> Up until this very moment I hadn't realized it, but damned if script
> kiddies and AV wannabes aren't cut from the same cloth. Neither one of you
> can muster up the half a gonad it would take to just admit you're wrong.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22kurt%20wismer%22%20%22i %20was%20wrong%22
maybe you should do some research before you open your figurative
pie-hole...
[snip]
> Pathetic, but not at all uncommon for maturity challenged individuals
> hiding behind keyboards. In fact Usenet is infested with your species.
i always knew i would become legion... shame i couldn't have done it the
way prospero thought caliban would...
> Here's some MODERN definitions and a bunch of "timeline" stuff proving
> what a cowardly little nincompoop you are.
and here's apple's millions in market research saying that most people
think of ibm pc compatibles when they see the term pc...
http://www.apple.com/getamac/
so bite me...
> One of these was even
> offered up by your script kiddie twin brother. Read, and weep boy.
i have a twin brother i never knew about? oh joy! i'm just so happy i
could cry... shame about that 2 year age difference though... mom must
be pissed...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
[snip]
> Or are you going to join Kurt in one of the most pathetic waffles of all
> times by simply discarding entire classes of fruits so you can amuse the
> entire world by claiming the only REAL fruit is an orange?
sigh... if only your strawman had a brain - he could give you a hand...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
edgewalker wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, the theft is of monies expected from the sale of the software,
expected monies cannot be stolen from you since they aren't yours to
begin with, they are a projection, a guess, not real in any sense of the
word...
not all pirated copies represent a lost sale...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer wrote:
> and here's apple's millions in market research saying that most people
> think of ibm pc compatibles when they see the term pc...
You're making me sad. About any modern PC actually claiming to be IBM
PS/2 compatible is not compatible at all.
Unruh wrote:
> "edgewalker"
>
>
>>"Sebastian Gottschalk"
>>news:4de11lF1a5c1gU2@news.dfncis.de...
>>> edgewalker wrote:
>>>
>>> > He knows full well what I meant with regard to the revenue one could
>>> > expect from sales of software. Giving away unauthorized free copies
>>> > of said software amounts to the theft of at least some of that
>>> > revenue.
>>>
>>> So what's up with free software?
>
>>If the software is intended to be free (as in free beer) then there is no
>>expected revenue for the author to be deprived of - and so no theft.
>
>
> There is no theft in either case. Loss of expected revenue is NOT theft (
I guess you'll have no problem with me taking the "expected revenue" you
call a paycheck from now on then?
Idiot.
kurt wismer wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> [snip]
>> Or are you going to join Kurt in one of the most pathetic waffles of all
>> times by simply discarding entire classes of fruits so you can amuse the
>> entire world by claiming the only REAL fruit is an orange?
>
> sigh... if only your strawman had a brain - he could give you a hand...
Snip and run noted.
kurt wismer wrote:
> edgewalker wrote:
> [snip]
>> Yes, the theft is of monies expected from the sale of the software,
>
> expected monies cannot be stolen from you since they aren't yours to begin
> with, they are a projection, a guess, not real in any sense of the word...
Every time you buy a lottery ticket and win, send the money to me.
Moron.
>
> not all pirated copies represent a lost sale...
Then you admit some do?
One makes you a thief.
TwistyCreek wrote:
> > expected monies cannot be stolen from you since they aren't yours to begin
> > with, they are a projection, a guess, not real in any sense of the word...
>
> Every time you buy a lottery ticket and win, send the money to me.
>
> Moron.
Who's the moron here exactly? Heh.. Once again, that was a rhetorical
question. :)
> >
> > not all pirated copies represent a lost sale...
>
> Then you admit some do?
>
> One makes you a thief.
One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief. Please do yourself a
favor and learn the difference, ok?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
> > Umm, Apple II is not an ibm compatable.
> So fucking what? It's a PC
Because we have freedom of definition, you may call an apple a banana.
No problem, really.
Maybe it will be a little bit difficult to find somebody who wants to
chat with you about bananas, which are round and green and red, and a
little bit sour.
Yours,
VB.
--
At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain
In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
> sillybanter wrote:
> > In the pre-IBM PC days of the Apple II, *nobody* called these "PCs". A
>
> You were OBVIOUSLY born in the 80's. Maybe even the 90's. Even BEFORE
> the Apple II we called our Heathkits and Altairs "PC's". The term was
> coined in the 60's when the powers that be came up with the IDEA of
> personal use machines to alleviate "overcrowding" on mainframes.
Man, are you this much of a jerk in person, or is this just a personna
you play on Usenet? If so, it's pretty ugly.
I will not get in a pissing match over qualifications with you. Let's
just say you're off by several decades on my age, and I guarantee
you'd lose any comparison of experience and qualifications. [ The
snide response: "Sonny, I have Usenet postings that date back to the
mid 1980s, and I wasn't posting in diapers!" ]
> > Mac is a "PC" in your generic usage, but *nobody* would call a Mac a
> > "PC" with a straight face. You know, all that talk about "Mac vs. PC"
>
> You have OBVIOUSLY never been out in the real world, in an office or other
> environment where everything is a "PC". [ Meaning both Macs and
> PCs are referred to as a "PC". ]
No, I've never been "in an office or other environment where
everything is a "PC"" -- because such places, if they exist, are
exceedingly rare. In places with multiple types of systems, usually
the *first* question you get from tech support is "Mac or PC"?
Seen the new Apple commercials on TV? "Hi I'm Mac" "I'm PC" Some of
the commercials are pretty good, and go completely counter to your
point that people call Macs "PCs".
You remind me of those people that get all uptight about the fact that
the word "hacker" is used most often now to refer to people who break
into systems rather than good programmers. Yes, it's annoying that
this word was hijacked for a different use. But meaning of words is
more often determined from usage than from some preconceived notions
that you might have. We lost the war on "hacker". You lost on what
you want to mean by "PC". Get over it.
--
Steve Stringer
sillybanter@gmail.com
Volker Birk wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
>>> Umm, Apple II is not an ibm compatable.
>> So fucking what? It's a PC
>
> Because we have freedom of definition, you may call an apple a banana.
> No problem, really.
>
> Maybe it will be a little bit difficult to find somebody who wants to
> chat with you about bananas, which are round and green and red, and a
> little bit sour.
Aluminium isn't sour, and these apples can be bought in a lot of typical
colours (expect pink). :-)
sillybanter@gmail.com wrote:
> Man, are you this much of a jerk in person, or is this just a personna
> you play on Usenet? If so, it's pretty ugly.
Likely he's just as much an arsehole in person as he is here.
> I will not get in a pissing match over qualifications with you. Let's
> just say you're off by several decades on my age, and I guarantee
> you'd lose any comparison of experience and qualifications. [ The
So what else is new?
> No, I've never been "in an office or other environment where
> everything is a "PC"" -- because such places, if they exist, are
> exceedingly rare. In places with multiple types of systems, usually
> the *first* question you get from tech support is "Mac or PC"?
So I wasn't hearing things. :)
> this word was hijacked for a different use. But meaning of words is
> more often determined from usage than from some preconceived notions
> that you might have. We lost the war on "hacker". You lost on what
> you want to mean by "PC". Get over it.
That's the problem tho, for him. Losing the war on what PC means also
means he's lost the war on the first virus credited, which was Brain.
:) It's a lose lose situation for him, so it's only natural he'd fight
it tooth and nail as he's displayed here.
Well, if we're being nitpicky, he's lost 3 wars...
War 1, copyright infrigement<>thief
War 2, PC meant anything
War 3, Viruses were available and widespread (snicker) on the PC
platform before Brain
He's a total loser.. heh.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
TwistyCreek wrote:
> > There is no theft in either case. Loss of expected revenue is NOT theft (
>
> I guess you'll have no problem with me taking the "expected revenue" you
> call a paycheck from now on then?
If you can't make the distinction between the types of revenue and the
differences, then why do you even call others an idiot? If anybodies
the idiot and the anal arse of the conversation, it would certainly
have to be you. I've never seen such an arrogant twit.
This entire thread has gone from semi pointless, to a total fuckin
waste of time.
Someday, when you learn the difference between theft and copyright
infringement, feel free to bash away. Otherwise, just fuck off. mm'kay?
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
sillybanter wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Borked Pseudo Mailed
> wrote:
>> sillybanter wrote:
>
>> > In the pre-IBM PC days of the Apple II, *nobody* called these "PCs". A
>>
>> You were OBVIOUSLY born in the 80's. Maybe even the 90's. Even BEFORE
>> the Apple II we called our Heathkits and Altairs "PC's". The term was
>> coined in the 60's when the powers that be came up with the IDEA of
>> personal use machines to alleviate "overcrowding" on mainframes.
>
> Man, are you this much of a jerk in person, or is this just a personna you
> play on Usenet? If so, it's pretty ugly.
In person you'd have had a boot in your ass a long time ago I suspect. If
you actually had the balls to act like a juvenile fukwit outside the
comfort of your daddy's Internet connection that is.
>
> I will not get in a pissing match over qualifications with you. Let's
A faint glimmer of common sense. There's hope for you yet.
> just say you're off by several decades on my age, and I guarantee you'd
So you were born YESTERDAY. No surprises there.
> lose any comparison of experience and qualifications. [ The snide
"I won't get into a qualifications contest, but I'm more qualified".
My GOD you're a fucking idiot. You can't even stick to a simple resolution
for 30 seconds. Even MORE evidence you're about 11 years old.
>> > Mac is a "PC" in your generic usage, but *nobody* would call a Mac a
>> > "PC" with a straight face. You know, all that talk about "Mac vs.
>> > PC"
>>
>> You have OBVIOUSLY never been out in the real world, in an office or
>> other environment where everything is a "PC". [ Meaning both Macs and
>> PCs are referred to as a "PC". ]
>
> No, I've never been "in an office or other environment where everything
> is a "PC"" -- because such places, if they exist, are exceedingly rare.
> In places with multiple types of systems, usually the *first* question
> you get from tech support is "Mac or PC"?
Bullshit. If you're working in a mixed environment it doesn't matter, and
you probably know tha answer to the question to begin with.
You've never held a tech position in your life. It's more apparent the
more you make amusing attempts to deny it.
>
> Seen the new Apple commercials on TV? "Hi I'm Mac" "I'm PC" Some of
Oh now THERE'S an authoritative cite.
ROTFLMAO!
Jargon files, dictionaries, and every timeline call Apple's offering a
PC, but some commercial just blows all that away.
I bet you believe IBM Compatibles lock up every 11 seconds too, huh?
ROTFL!
LOL!!!
Put down the remote child of Zion, the matrix isn't real.
> the commercials are pretty good, and go completely counter to your point
> that people call Macs "PCs".
>
> You remind me of those people that get all uptight about the fact that
You remind ME of a little fat kid who just pissed in his pants crying
about how it's OK because little retarded Billy did it some TV cartoon.
> the word "hacker" is used most often now to refer to people who break
> into systems rather than good programmers. Yes, it's annoying that this
I see you have a problem with all sorts of accurate usages of words.
That explains a lot. Fancy yourself some sort of "rebel" do you?
> word was hijacked for a different use. But meaning of words is more
> often determined from usage than from some preconceived notions that you
> might have. We lost the war on "hacker". You lost on what you want to
> mean by "PC". Get over it.
Of course I did, your TV commercials just blew everything away.
ROTFL!
What a knuckle dragging BUFFOON!
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>> > expected monies cannot be stolen from you since they aren't yours to
>> > begin with, they are a projection, a guess, not real in any sense of
>> > the word...
>>
>> Every time you buy a lottery ticket and win, send the money to me.
>>
>> Moron.
>
> Who's the moron here exactly? Heh.. Once again, that was a rhetorical
> question. :)
Obviously. And one asked by someone with nothing to their credit BUT their
inane rhetoric.
>
>
>> > not all pirated copies represent a lost sale...
>>
>> Then you admit some do?
>>
>> One makes you a thief.
>
> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
Said the thief....
You're just like a baby raper trying to defend themselves by saying you're
doing nothing wrong because you really "love" the little kids you stick
your dick in.
George Orwell wrote:
> Obviously. And one asked by someone with nothing to their credit BUT their
> inane rhetoric.
You gave up any notion of credibility several posts ago.... I wouldn't
worry about it now.
> > One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>
> Said the thief....
Copyright Infringement, I know, it's a hard distinction for someone of
your brain matter to comprehend, but try anyway won't you?
> You're just like a baby raper trying to defend themselves by saying you're
> doing nothing wrong because you really "love" the little kids you stick
> your dick in.
And at this point, I'd say it's a safe bet you've lost any/all
credibility here that you might have had. We couldn't get any further
from the original topic of this thread. Your one seriously fucked in
the head individual, however.
Enjoy playing with your apples,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
George Orwell wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
> Said the thief....
> You're just like a baby raper trying to defend themselves by saying
> you're doing nothing wrong because you really "love" the little kids
> you stick your dick in.
Copyright infringers are sued in civil court. If they lose, and if the
prevailing party actually suffered damages, money changes hands.
Pedophiles are prosecuted in criminal court. If convicted, they are
delivered to jail and suffer the consequences--because not even hardened
criminals suffer sexual deviants to live in peace.
Your analogy is not only thoroughly disgusting, it is also fallacious on
its face.
rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> George Orwell wrote:
>
>> Obviously. And one asked by someone with nothing to their credit BUT
>> their inane rhetoric.
>
> You gave up any notion of credibility several posts ago.... I wouldn't
> worry about it now.
I wasn't "worried" about it to begin with. Being credible in the eyes of a
common criminal isn't something that's of any importance what so ever.
Never has been, never will be. In fact as much as your breed dislikes this
simple truth, having delinquents disagree with a position makes it that
much stronger. So much so that if an honest, credible person ever finds
themselves on the same side of an issue as the likes of you it's a certain
bet they'll be reexamining their own logic for glaring flaws.
Welcome to the reality of your entire "adult" life, Dustin. You're a
loser. You'll always be a loser. And nobody but other losers will ever
care what you think because of it. You put your chances of ever having the
respect of anyone who counts in jeopardy when you chose to be an asshat as
a youngster, and sealed your fate by never growing up.
>> > One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>>
>> Said the thief....
>
> Copyright Infringement,
"But it's only 'young love' because I really care about the children I
rape, your honor."
Pathetic.
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> George Orwell wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>>> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>
>> Said the thief....
>
>> You're just like a baby raper trying to defend themselves by saying
>> you're doing nothing wrong because you really "love" the little kids you
>> stick your dick in.
>
> Copyright infringers are sued in civil court. If they lose, and if the
> prevailing party actually suffered damages, money changes hands.
>
> Pedophiles are prosecuted in criminal court. If convicted, they are
And what exactly does this have to do with both types of criminals trying
to self-justify their criminal behavior with lame ass excuses and
rationalizations?
Oh yeah, that's right...... nothing at all.
> delivered to jail and suffer the consequences--because not even hardened
> criminals suffer sexual deviants to live in peace.
>
> Your analogy is not only thoroughly disgusting, it is also fallacious on
> its face.
Obviously not. You're just too brain dead to comprehend the fact that
nobody's analogizing any particular crime, just the criminal's behavior
patterns. Either that or you're another one of the criminals trying to
toss up more stupid smoke screens by pretending it's so.
How about if we compare criminals to drunks who refuse to quit drinking
in spite of the obvious toll it exacts on those around them, because they
keep deluding themselves about not hurting anyone but themselves? Would
that appeal to your whiny, feminine sense of "morality" an better honey?
No "crime" at all. Same God damned system if denial and rationalization no
matter WHICH way you slice it.
George Orwell wrote:
> Pathetic.
What's pathetic is that you're compelled to resort to ad hominem attacks
and fallacious analogies to make a argument.
I'm 48 years old, not a criminal, not a delinquent, and not a loser--I'm
just a lurker who finds this argument becoming more obnoxious by the
post. I'm also a career paralegal who never much liked criminal
practice, because the common attitudes held by criminals in general are
repugnant to me. It's very difficult to handle a case for scum,
because...well...scum is scum.
The point of telling you this is so you'll understand why I do not
perceive your target as you do. He does not present as a criminal
personality, so you'll have to figure out some other way to label him.
There's a big difference between "sociopath" and "Type-T."
The way it really seems to me is that you have an ax to grind, and you
have mistaken him for a whetstone.
By my estimation, you lost the entire argument when you resorted to the
tactics used by 12-year old boys, i.e., this is fast turning into a (on
your side) "your mama" argument.
You lose, by definition.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
Argument by snippage is poor form.
> Obviously not. You're just too brain dead to comprehend the fact that
> nobody's analogizing any particular crime, just the criminal's
> behavior patterns. Either that or you're another one of the criminals
> trying to toss up more stupid smoke screens by pretending it's so.
My IQ is the same as it has always been--high--and I evidence no signs
of senility. Not yet, anyway.
> How about if we compare criminals to drunks who refuse to quit
> drinking in spite of the obvious toll it exacts on those around them,
> because they keep deluding themselves about not hurting anyone but
> themselves? Would that appeal to your whiny, feminine sense of
> "morality" an better honey? No "crime" at all. Same God damned system
> if denial and rationalization no matter WHICH way you slice it.
PC is, right?
As I told your pal, George, when you resort to the kind of
pseudo-argument you put forth above, you've already lost.
There wasn't a shred of content in what you wrote--just a lot of insult
and hyperbole. And your analogy to addiction also fails.
Get back to me after you take a course in logic, eh? I love a good
argument, but there are rules, and if you refuse to follow them, it
makes you boring.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff
George Orwell wrote:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
[snip]
>> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>
> Said the thief....
and the US supreme court...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
>
Sorry you left the Dell newsgroup.
Glad to see you over here... This place could use a little class!
Notan
kurt wismer wrote:
> George Orwell wrote:
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
> [snip]
>>> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>> Said the thief....
> and the US supreme court...
Never bring the Supreme Court into an argument, Kurt, or the next thing
you're going to be discussing is everything that is wrong with the
individual Justices. Politics, y'know?
Here's my analogy: pot, kettle, black. Because unless our boy George is
very young (and even if he is young and living in the wrong state or
country), his first (and possibly all subsequent) blow job(s) was very
likely illegal. But heaven forfend that he should perceive himself as a
criminal.
Then again, I may be making an unwarranted assumption.
Don't blame me, George. ;) You're the one who dragged sex into it. I
just brought it back down to the appropriate level--irrelevant and
possibly even non-existent.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff
Notan wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Sorry you left the Dell newsgroup.
It's okay to say they ran me off. ;)
I wonder how long it will take here?
> Glad to see you over here... This place could use a little class!
Guess I'd better go put on the little black dress and three inch heels
if I'm to live up to that. :)
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
You must be the change you wish to see
in the world. Mohandas K. Gandhi
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Sorry you left the Dell newsgroup.
>
> It's okay to say they ran me off. ;)
>
> I wonder how long it will take here?
>
> > Glad to see you over here... This place could use a little class!
>
> Guess I'd better go put on the little black dress and three inch heels
> if I'm to live up to that. :)
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!
Notan
There is definately a danger opening WMV files. I recently downloaded a
file and when i tried to open it, it said that it had a different
extension compared to what it expected or something. But i've had this
message before anyway, so i tried to play it. Second in and the screen
went black, i heard something in my computer deactivate. I could only
assume it was my HDD, so i quickly turned it off. I rebooted into safe
mode and deleted the file, then checked msconfig, deleted the run at
startup string, and located the file in the system root. I erased it
and its been plain sailing since!
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>> George Orwell wrote:
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>
>>> Said the thief....
>
>> and the US supreme court...
>
>
>
> Never bring the Supreme Court into an argument, Kurt, or the next thing
> you're going to be discussing is everything that is wrong with the
> individual Justices. Politics, y'know?
woulda, coulda, shoulda... that just goes to whether copyright
infringement *should* be considered theft, not whether it currently *is*
_legally_ considered theft....
and since theft is a concept that is governed by the law, if it's
copyright infringement isn't legally considered theft then it's not
theft (at least not until someone with the authority to change the law
actually does so)...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer wrote:
> woulda, coulda, shoulda... that just goes to whether copyright
> infringement *should* be considered theft, not whether it currently
> *is* _legally_ considered theft....
>
> and since theft is a concept that is governed by the law, if it's
> copyright infringement isn't legally considered theft then it's not
> theft (at least not until someone with the authority to change the law
> actually does so)...
Posting links seems a lot more practical than writing a very long post,
particularly because Eric Flint and Spider Robinson are far better
writers than I'll ever be.
This is an essay:
http://www.baen.com/library/
This is a parable, only good for those who enjoy fiction:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
I hope that wiser minds will continue to prevail, but I'm not counting
on it. The fact that people continue to make the "theft" argument
convinces me that the average human brain is turning into tapioca.
And anyone who says "a book is not software," goes straight to my
respository for ignorant cretins.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
You must be the change you wish to see
in the world. Mohandas K. Gandhi
In comp.security.misc Rhonda Lea Kirk
> George Orwell wrote:
> > Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> >> One makes him a copyright infringer, not a thief.
>
> > Said the thief....
>
> > You're just like a baby raper trying to defend themselves by saying
> > you're doing nothing wrong because you really "love" the little kids
> > you stick your dick in.
>
> Copyright infringers are sued in civil court. If they lose, and if the
> prevailing party actually suffered damages, money changes hands.
Hate to spoil an otherwise good argument, but in some situations (most
commonly when copying is done for non-trivial financial gain)
copyright infringers end up in criminal court, with the possibility of
jail time.
If copyright infringement is done for your own use (not commercial
gain), then it's unlikely that it would be anything more than a civil
issue (except watch out for some bills currently being debated which
have the potential to change this).
--
Steve Stringer
sillybanter@gmail.com
sillybanter@gmail.com wrote:
> Hate to spoil an otherwise good argument, but in some situations (most
> commonly when copying is done for non-trivial financial gain)
> copyright infringers end up in criminal court, with the possibility of
> jail time.
True, it's a sick perversion of the law.
> If copyright infringement is done for your own use (not commercial
> gain), then it's unlikely that it would be anything more than a civil
> issue (except watch out for some bills currently being debated which
> have the potential to change this).
Indeed they do.
In all fairness tho, I think the topic has come to a standstill.
Various individuals know the difference between copyright infringement
and theft and some obviously do not. When we get to the point where we
are comparing child rapists to a copyright infringer, the point of the
message has been lost.
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> sillybanter@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hate to spoil an otherwise good argument, but in some situations (most
>> commonly when copying is done for non-trivial financial gain) copyright
>> infringers end up in criminal court, with the possibility of jail time.
>
> True, it's a sick perversion of the law.
>
>> If copyright infringement is done for your own use (not commercial
>> gain), then it's unlikely that it would be anything more than a civil
>> issue (except watch out for some bills currently being debated which
>> have the potential to change this).
>
> Indeed they do.
>
> In all fairness tho, I think the topic has come to a standstill. Various
> individuals know the difference between copyright infringement and theft
> and some obviously do not. When we get to the point where we are comparing
> child rapists to a copyright infringer, the point of the message has been
> lost.
Nobody made any such comparison and you KNOW that. This is just one more
smoke screen you're throwing up to gloss over and tap dance around your
long history of criminal behavior.
What WAS compared is your asinine arguments and excuses, and the way other
criminals excuse and rationalize their own criminal activity. It was also
compared to the way drunks rationalize. All of which are valid
comparisons. You're a practicing thief, bragging about it, and at the same
time trying to play it down. A walking contradiction that's as
transparent as fresh cleaned glass.
>
> Regards,
> Dustin Cook
> http://bughunter.atspace.org
TwistyCreek wrote:
> Nobody made any such comparison and you KNOW that. This is just one more
> smoke screen you're throwing up to gloss over and tap dance around your
> long history of criminal behavior.
What long history of criminal behavior is it your talking about? It's
obvious you have some sort of axe to grind... I think it would be
better served on someone who has the free time you seem to require.
> What WAS compared is your asinine arguments and excuses, and the way other
> criminals excuse and rationalize their own criminal activity. It was also
> compared to the way drunks rationalize. All of which are valid
> comparisons.
Oh yes, you were already scolded for the flaws in your comparisons, I
see no need to repeat them.
>You're a practicing thief, bragging about it, and at the same
> time trying to play it down. A walking contradiction that's as
> transparent as fresh cleaned glass.
Are you sure it's my posts you intend to respond to with such nonsense?
At what point have *I* said I was a thief? Perhaps you can clear up a
few things for me. One, what makes you think I'm a thief? Two, at one
point have I bragged about... oh... anything? And finally, what exactly
is it im playing down?
I'm still waiting for your explanation concerning my BugHunter program.
You wouldn't mind listing the things I claim it can/will do that it
cannot? You may have already answered it, if so I missed it, and
shouldn't be any trouble for you to answer again.
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org