Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<xkska.103$pE6.12396661_at_mantis.golden.net>...
> "Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message
> news:91884734.0304071407.40d1be83_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:<gt8ka.63$B44.5974121_at_mantis.golden.net>...
> > > "Gabriel Gonzalez" <no-spam_at_no-spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:HWCdnZLI_Mzsew2jXTWcrg_at_giganews.com...
> > > > > And you have the unmitigated gall to call the author you stole from
> > > > > unprofessional? You are a disgrace and clearly a rank amateur. Have
> you
> no
> > > > > shame?
> > > >
> > > > Stop the trash talk, these newsgroups don't need anymore of this trash
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully everyone reading your comment will recongnize it for what it
> is:
> > > > Yet another shoot-from-the-hip personl assault that was uncalled for
> (if
> you
> > > > want it to be called for, then prove your allegations true before you
> make
> > > > them).
> > >
> > > Gabriel,
> > >
> > > The addressee took what did not belong to him, made no effort to
> determine
> > > proper ownership of what did not belong to him and used what did not
> belong
> > > to him for his own intended commercial gain. That's theft. None of those
> > > facts are in question nor were any of them in question when I made the
> > > allegation--the addressee publicly admitted to those facts.
> >
> > I missed the part about intended commercial gain. Where did that come
> > from?
>
> Do you think Mr. Hunter expects the time and effort he puts into his site
> will return nothing on his investment?

I dunno. I don't seem to get much of a return on _my_ web page. The ocassional email thanking me is certainly appreciated. I don't consider the web page as a financial investment, and most web pages are pretty piss-poor investments if they are regarded as financial investments. And if you haven't noticed, most sites that _are_ intended as financial investments have been big losers.  

>
>
> > I certainly didn't have to pay anything for it.
>
> He gives away stolen property for free in order to buy goodwill from you.
> Goodwill has economic value. What part of the commercial gain involved did
> you not understand?

So how much will you pay me? I think you don't understand the difference between goodwill as an accounting fiction that acknowledges things that are fully depreciated yet may still have some value (like Mickey Mouse films), and goodwill used in the altruistic sense. You wouldn't be an Objectivist, would you? Those guys literally equate altruism with human sacrifice. I'd give you a link, but it would only be good until Thursday, and that copyright holder doesn't quite get that they could both perhaps profit and definitely be seen as a leader and information provider of record if they kept the "old newspapers" around publicly available like a library (which they do electronically anyways for their hardcopy subscribers).

>
>
> > And while an
> > explicit part of IP is the ability to withhold publication, I'm not
> > sure that stealing that ability is on the same level as grabbing and
> > running off with some jewelry.
>
> It can be much worse. How many millions of dollars worth of Microsoft IP (or
> is it billions) is stolen every year?

Larger in magnitude does not mean ethically worse. A much better argument could be made that property is theft, and I'm not gonna go there!

>
>
> > > The addressee publicly libelled the author and copyright holder calling
> him
> > > "unprofessional" for exercising his own right to his own intellectual
> > > property. Neither are any of those facts in question nor were any of
> them in
> > > question when I made the allegation--they were written in the
> addressee's
> > > public post to which I replied. Stealing from someone and then libelling
> the
> > > victim in retribution for getting caught is disgraceful. Does anyone
> > > disagree?
> > >
> > > The addressee called the victim of his theft "unprofessional" without
> > > stating his reasoning but apparently for the public way in which the
> victim
> > > exercised his property rights. By the addressee's apparent standard,
> > > choosing a needlessly public forum for addressing conflict is
> > > "unprofessional." (One wonders whether the same standard applies to
> robbery
> > > victims shouting "Stop thief!" on a crowded street.) Thus the
> addressee's
> > > own choice of a public forum to denigrate his victim rates the addressee
> > > "unprofessional" by his own standard--exceptionally so, in fact, given
> he
> > > had wronged his victim once already.
> >
> > The ironic thing is, I never would have noticed it had Mr. Rogers not
> > publicly pointed it out.
> >
> > I know! Let's all have pointers... "links" to published material! It
> > could go anywhere! We could have a.. a World Wide Web! Yeah,
> > wouldn't that be cool! But, sadly, where is the profit in not
> > withholding information? Never mind.
>
> Since Mr. Hunter pointed out that he found the document on multiple sites,
> he could have done exactly that to avoid violating Mr. Rogers' copyright. Of
> course, that doesn't seem as much like giving away something for free so it
> might buy less goodwill.

Links are notoriously unstable (just look at my link page :-O ). There is value to redundant electronic copies in a distributed system, and in fact, that is a major feature of the web.

And of course, as we've all seen by now, it isn't Mr. Rogers' copyright. Any copyright holder must vigorously defend their rights or lose them, so we all lose out in the name of potential excess profit. The legal system is simply too far behind current technology, and is going the wrong way.

jg

--
_at_home.com is bogus.
garry.to is web page.