Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:56:04 GMT

I reject any invocation of the FUD concept as it is just meant to shut up dissent and disparage a debate opponent. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, when stripped of their insolent geek misuse, are all terms that are valid, legitimate, public, normal concerns. The idea that scientists get to do what they want with no civilian questioning or restraint is the bedrock of a liberal democratic society. If each criticism or objection to the manias of scientists was able to be removed by invocation of "FUD", we'd have Lysenkoism, i.e. tyrannical declaration of "science" for political expedience. Of course, that's what we do have here already. Again, when practicing all the Nizkor stuff, be sure to apply it to yourself first and foremost -- characterizing each and every critique of the opensource shtick as "FUD" is a definite Nizkor violation -- offsides!

Re: "Then, you brought up a single case of one individual (who you haven't proved is part of an open source project) who used a tool someone on the Internet developed (un-named person) to copy content that they hired someone to make for them(the content creator says that 'no copy' was the intended permission). For your claim to be anything other then FUD, you'd have to show that all open source developers are actively working to violate Intellectual Property.  You can revise your claim like the following, "Some Open Source Developers are copyleftist." and it would be true.

I have no idea what this reference is to. Copybot? But as John Hurliman of Intel, right here on this list can tell you, he made Copybot for a client but he didn't just use it privately for that client for "no copy" permissions. No, he unleashed it into the world. Indeed he was very much part of the opensource project libsecondlife busy reverse engineering the SL client and er...re-engineering (that's their preferred term ROFL) the server code. He both gave away and sold Copybot and hundreds of versions of it were grabbed. What's operative about Copybot isn't that "it stopped working" or "it didn't do that much damage" or "the Lindens then banned misuse of it" but that it was a giant social hack that succeeded in undermining an entire virtual world economy. Sorry, you don't get to scream FUD on that one when people did see how it work and did understand its consequences and most of all, saw the nasty and cynical insolence of those making and selling it and narf-narfing about it on the IRC channel.

If you are talking about the Hungarian village heist, your facts don't square with what I have from the sources on that. If you are talking about some other copy rip off -- geez, I know about about 4 cases now including one I filed and there are hundreds -- your points are lost. 

Yes, all the opensourceniks in the AWG -- to a man -- are copyleftists. Yes indeedy. Every. single. one. Not a single one has ever said anything different whatsoever. Er...to a woman. I forgot that Zha does look worried and says "people should have a way of marking intent and they should call their lawyer".

Are you one of the founders of libsecondlife, Dan? You sound awfully familiar with the arguments that certain members of it constantly use to downplay the Copybot incident lol.

What's important to remember about all the Copybot stuff so as to take it out of the parochial Second Life context is that while Cory Linden (then CTO, Cory Ondrejka) made a manifesto in 2006 basically saying like Kevin Kelly, "Virtual worlds are a copy machine," on the Linden blogs, he was forced, by the sheer brutal pragmatism of having to keep a world full of people from revolting further (hundreds had shuttered their stores), to go along with penalizing the use of Copybot to violate copyright. That of course left a loophole for every goof to say he was just using it to "learn" and "for personal use" as he filled up his "business-in-box".  

____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97u02OOYHoQJwu9mVeSZi8Q6W74zXgfB1aA8YfmgixGlRkUfU2U/

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:51:28 -0500

Are you *really* going to argue that you don't word things for maximum
Scare value and use purely logical statements with no political
motivation?   Anyone can look back at this list, or your blog for
proof that you do word things for maximum scare value and you do have
an agenda.  You are arguing against the case for interoperability.
You don't want it because it changes your land business model and
claim that it makes it harder for you to protect your IP.

"The idea that scientists get to do what they want with no civilian
questioning or restraint is the bedrock of a liberal democratic
society."
You know this comment is a thing of conspiracy theories.  Do you
really think that you're the /only/ reporter to ever report on
science?   Do you think that all other reporters are in the pocket of
scientists?  Maybe the aliens got to them?

"If each criticism or objection to the manias of scientists was able
to be removed by invocation of "FUD", we'd have Lysenkoism"
You're really out there in left field here.  I'm pretty sure that your
intention is to argue against interoperability.   To do that, you will
need to make logical arguments with proof..   so far, you have not!

"Of course, that's what we do have here already. Again, when
practicing all the Nizkor stuff, be sure to apply it to yourself first
and foremost -- characterizing each and every critique of the
opensource shtick as "FUD" is a definite Nizkor violation --
offsides!"

Actually..    FUD means 'fear uncertainty and doubt'..    which..
applies to your statement.  You didn't provide proof, therefore you
didn't satisfy the Burden of Proof and can't make that claim.  Pretty
much nothing you can logically argue at this point will change
that(except if you provide sufficient proof).   I don't see how my
characterization of what you said wasn't intended to incite fear
uncertainty and doubt.  Please enlighten me.  Obviously, you think
that if someone disagrees with you based on logic, that they must be
"Nizkoring", which, also doesn't make sense because   Logic is logic.
If you are disputing something that I say, then I *will* use logic to
dispute the points, period.  No matter if you call it FUD or
Nizkoring, it's logic and logic is an important part of any
conversation.  The sooner that you accept it, the more people will
accept your arguments.

Even though your 'case' didn't include an external reference to
support your claim, I assumed you meant this one ( Ref:
http://primperfectblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/trust-revisited-content-creation-theft-and-open-source-grids/
)

" I have no idea what this reference is to. Copybot? But as John
Hurliman of Intel, right here on this list can tell you, he made
Copybot for a client but he didn't just use it privately for that
client for "no copy" permissions."
If you're talking about John Hurliman making libOMV(libsecondlife),
yes he had a hand it in.   Copybot was created using
LibOMV(libsecondlife) to talk with the SecondLifeGrid Servers.    And,
you still have not provided sufficient proof that *all* Open Source
developers are pushing for IP violations and therefore the statement
is false.
You can revise your statement to use 'Some' instead of 'all' and it
would be true.

Additionally, Ari Blackthorne in the comments says;
"A prim replicator is not copybot. It doesn’t copy scripts or things
like this, but it does replicate prims and is a good tool (I use one
in my own building efforts.) But, like any other tool, can be abused."

Can you prove that the person in the article did, indeed use copybot?
No.  Can you prove that person copied the content, Yes.  Did John
Hurliman copy the content?  No.  Did Adam Frisby copy the content?
No.  Did Linden Lab copy the content?  No.   Did I copy the content?
No.

"Sorry, you don't get to scream FUD on that one when people did see
how it work and did understand its consequences and most of all, saw
the nasty and cynical insolence of those making and selling it and
narf-narfing about it on the IRC channel."

Did I explain somewhere that I was OK with people violating other
people's intellectual property and called attempts to point it out
FUD?  I didn't!  I saw you make illogical statements like, "All Open
Source developers are copyleftist"..  to which you intend to create a
false image in content creators heads like, "All Open Source
developers want to steal your content!!!!!".
That's FUD.

"geez, I know about about 4 cases now including one I filed and there
are hundreds -- your points are lost"
You cannot claim that my points are lost based on purely your
statement.   Additionally this does nothing to prove that 'all open
source developers are copyleftist'.

"Yes, all the opensourceniks in the AWG -- to a man -- are
copyleftists. Yes indeedy. Every. single. one. Not a single one has
ever said anything different whatsoever."

Not saying anything isn't the same thing as saying that they're
copyleftist.  This is a hasty generalization

"Are you one of the founders of libsecondlife, Dan? You sound awfully
familiar with the arguments that certain members of it constantly use
to downplay the Copybot incident lol."

No, I'm not one of the founders of libsecondlife.   I am familiar with
the arguments here, because I do my research.  You might want to try
it sometime.  Maybe, actually include some references with your
aguments that are relevant and prove your arguments?  Obviously,
arguing with me /without/ doing that isn't working.

"What's important to remember about all the Copybot stuff so as to
take it out of the parochial Second Life context is that while Cory
Linden (then CTO, Cory Ondrejka) made a manifesto in 2006 basically
saying like Kevin Kelly, "Virtual worlds are a copy machine," on the
Linden blogs, he was forced, by the sheer brutal pragmatism of having
to keep a world full of people from revolting further (hundreds had
shuttered their stores), to go along with penalizing the use of
Copybot to violate copyright. That of course left a loophole for every
goof to say he was just using it to "learn" and "for personal use" as
he filled up his "business-in-box"."

That's nice.  As I stated above, I never said that IP rights
violations were OK.

Sincerely

Daniel Olivares

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:56 AM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97u03ZAsRxHTLk97yLKJF70zgO8nj0NwCJ1GZL8cHiUYTLy6LyI/
>