My lasersoft

[Sergey]

Yes, I do not intend to distribute any copyrighted materials with my software. And my project is still not finished(and I even dont know when it will be finished). So you can be calmly, no copyrighted frames will be distributed.

[buffo]

Sometimes "Doing the right thing" is a matter of perspective and not morality.

And just where are you going with that line of reasoning, Alex? Are you saying that your definition of "right" depends on your perspective? Or that Bill's definition of "right" is somehow different from yours because of your unique perspective?

Please explain, because it sure sounds like you're trying to justify an unethical (or immoral, or illegal, if you prefer) act based on someone's "perspective", which is hogwash.

bits and bytes can not be stolen... only copied...

Wrong. Suppose I steal your computer's hard drive. In that case I have not only stolen your physical property (the drive) but also stolen whatever content (intellectual property) you had saved on it. Assuming that you didn't back it up, I've now got the only copy. Thus I have deprived you of your bits: the very definition of theft.

I do agree that copyright infringement is technically not the same thing as theft because you do not deprive the original copyright holder of the item you copied. But that's arguing over semantics. The larger point is that both acts (theft and copyright infringement) are fundamentally unethical (and, incidentally, illegal as well). Do you disagree?

Adam

[Stuka]

Sometimes "Doing the right thing" is a matter of perspective and not morality.

bits and bytes can not be stolen... only copied...

Interesting -

If that's the case, I guess it's OK for me to slap a new bitmap on a certain freeware laserframe creation software package, rename it "LaserStuka", and pass it off as my own!

Yes, I do not intend to distribute any copyrighted materials with my software. And my project is still not finished(and I even dont know when it will be finished). So you can be calmly, no copyrighted frames will be distributed.

I'm sure Bill's intent was to help keep everyone "legal" and avoid any possible related issues for any of us down the road.
We're looking foward to seeing your project, Sergey!!

[Sergey]

The first release of my new software for simple shows. Supported 3 types of DACs on parallel port. Supported data formats: #0 and #1. Many features are didnt added yet and still has some bugs.

[Sergey]

Note, it is only executable file, not setup program.

[Profexion]

Sergey looks that you are doing a GREAT job, it is a challenge for you and you enjoy it. Keep up the good work !!

[soforene]

Nice one Sergey.
Would it be possible to add some way to adjust the speed of the preview playback?
When I run some of my frames, they whizz by.

[Sergey]

The main reason of very high frame rate in preview mode is speed of your computer. Frames with less points will work faster and vice versa. I think to implement constant framerate using system timer. But using preview this way will not give objective results because target laser system is vector oriented.

Program supports 3 DACs: Norm DAC08, DAC0832 with latch for color info and laser controller with 1KB buffer memory of my own design. I didnt test DAC0832 because I dont have it. Does anybody tested it?

[soforene]

That's the first time I've found out that my PC is too fast for something.

[p1t8ull]

my PC is too fast

Thats an easy fix, install McAfee

[Sergey]

That's the first time I've found out that my PC is too fast for something.

At this moment I work on Pentium3 450 MHz and even it sometimes too fast for some applications(like researching processes in schematic simulators).

McAfee is not good solution if you want out your show to DAC. But for preveiw it also could be used.

[Sergey]

Okay, this update fixes the problem whith frame rate. At least it can work better than Macafee. Also some bugs were fixed.

[soforene]

Nice one Sergey.
The "Use Delay" function works great.
I have a few suggestions/Feedback.

• Would it be possible to make the "delay time" user alterable?
  Either by inputting a numeric value or via a slider.

• It would also be nice if the Frame select scroll bar (on the right) responded to a scroll wheel for when users select a directory that contains a lot of frames.

• When I run an animated frame, if I select another animated frame, the animation stops so I have to tick the "Play" button again.
  Would it be possible to remember whether the play button was selected and "Auto Run" animated frames in this way?

These are just suggestions and feedback to your work in progress and I appreciate the time that you have spent so far.
If none are implemented then it's still an excellent tool.

[Sergey]

1.Use System->Otions tab
2.Added scrolling but not by wheel. Use this update. My IDE was introduced in 1998, when no mice with wheels were.
3.I will think what I can to do.

[soforene]

Now that's what I call service !!

[Profexion]

Soforene,

Can you show me this software at the UKLEM party ?

I am really curious now...

Sergey, I have a Mac so I doubt it would work on this ?

[soforene]

No probs matey.
That's what the LEM's are all about.
Well, that and the strippers.

I only use mine as a frame browser at the mo though.
Some peeps get a bit irked if you don't use all the features but as Frame Browsers go, this is a little peach.

[Sergey]

I have a Mac so I doubt it would work on this ?

You cant try it on your Mac?

I really dont know if my applications can work on another platform.

[Profexion]

We will discuss next sunday, anyway the is work MAC, so I have a pc for the other stuff....

Keep up the good work !!

[keeperx]

Buffo,

Sorry so late getting back to you..

Its AleC BTW...

Regarding my comments about perspective of right and wrong..

Yes i believe that right and wrong are based on perspective and therefore ambiguous. Not to say that third part perspective in completely ambiguous, but from person to person, perspective changes. I for example could believe that it is wrong have sex out of wedlock where as you may not (just an example im not calling you a slut).

As far as bits being stolen, you cant do it, you can only copy them. I do recognize that the order they are in and what they represent are very important, but a but is an idea, its an abstract idea, its analogous to a 1 or a 0, so it s just a switch that exists in perceptive space. you can not steal a bit.. if you steal a hard drive you are stealing a platter with iron oxide rust arranged on it in a very creative manner.. its not until its read that its a bit and then only for a split second as it exists as either and on or an off, and furthermore is useless without the information before it and after it.

Thats why we have COPYRIGHTS, because copying and stealing are completely different things. unless your Amish, they believe that a Picture steals your soul. But then there are no Amish in here are there?

[DZ]

As far as bits being stolen, you cant do it, you can only copy them.

Rubbish. Allow me to explain:

"Steal - 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

You don't have the *right* to "copy" a program unless you pay for it, unless it's "freeware" or "shareware". By that very definition, it's stealing.

Acknowledgements - www.dictionary.com

[buffo]

Its AleC BTW...

I know... It was a typo. The "X" and the "C" are adjacent on the keyboard, you know...

You argument about having sex out of wedlock implies that you believe different people could have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that some people would have no problem with copyright infringement? And that's why Bill (or any company, for that matter) can't rely on people to "do the right thing", because they might not believe that what they are doing is "the wrong thing" when they violate the copyright?

If that's where you're coming from, then I still have to disagree with you, for one simple reason. Despite the fact that someone might *think* that it's OK to violate a copyright (based on their own perspective), it doesn't change the fact that it is still against the law, and thus violating the copyright is never going to be the "right" thing to do.

If a person disagrees with copyright protection (based on their "perspective", or whatever other means they choose to use to justify this position), then the "right" thing to do is to work to change the law, not to arbitrarily declare the law to be invalid and violate it. (Especially in this case, because prosecution for copyright infringement is quite difficult, so the "legal threat" is not nearly as effective as it would be for other crimes.)

Bottom line: if someone is violating a copyright and *thinks* that they are doing the "right" thing, then they are going through some very convoluted thinking to hide from the truth. That truth being: they are lying to themselves. The logic goes something like this: "I think the law is inconvenient, so I will argue that it is a bad law, which will justify my breaking said law." But, of course, this is hogwash. You can't arbitrarily decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. (If we *could* all do that, without repercussion, you'd have anarchy.)

Copyright deniers conveniently sieze on the difference between outright "theft" and "copyright infringement", and will frequently narrow the discussion to just that point. Then they argue that point to death while missing the larger picture, which is that copyright infringement is *also* wrong (just as theft is). I agree that infringement isn't theft (something that I also stated above), but I also contend that in the context of a discussion of right and wrong, the difference is irrelevent. They are *both* wrong. Based on your initial post in this thread, it would appear that you agree with this.

However, I'm wondering why you would later choose to argue over the semantics of the issue when you admitted above (albeit somewhat sarcastically), that you agreed that the copyrighted Pangolin frames should not be distributed with Sergey's software. If you respect Pangolin's copyright claim, then you're essentially on the same page as everyone else in this thread already.

But by pressing the issue of "alternate perspectives", it makes it sound like you're actually *not* respecting Pangolin's copyright and are using the "alternate perspectives" example as justification for people to violate the copyright. This may not have been your intention (and indeed, this does seem to contradict your initial post), but judging by my reaction (and that of Stuka and DZ above), it certainly seems to be the way that it was perceived.

Adam

[keeperx]

I know... It was a typo. The "X" and the "C" are adjacent on the keyboard, you know...

You argument about having sex out of wedlock implies that you believe different people could have different opinions about what is right and what is wrong. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that some people would have no problem with copyright infringement? And that's why Bill (or any company, for that matter) can't rely on people to "do the right thing", because they might not believe that what they are doing is "the wrong thing" when they violate the copyright?

That is correct

it doesn't change the fact that it is still against the law, and thus violating the copyright is never going to be the "right" thing to do.

Again this still ambiguous. And im being completely serious here.
#1 you are talking about the laws of man and
#2 you are talking ablou US and mayby international laws (i don't actually know)
#3 apparently they dont care too much about this MANY countries as they have entire industries thriving around piracy.
#4 there are obviously people for whom could care less about law but DO care about consequence

If a person disagrees with copyright protection (based on their "perspective", or whatever other means they choose to use to justify this position), then the "right" thing to do is to work to change the law, not to arbitrarily declare the law to be invalid and violate it. (Especially in this case, because prosecution for copyright infringement is quite difficult, so the "legal threat" is not nearly as effective as it would be for other crimes.)

Thats your opinion of what the proper thing to do is. but one may believe that the law has no value at all so therefore why try to change it.

You can't arbitrarily decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. (If we *could* all do that, without repercussion, you'd have anarchy.)

Thats my point you CAN arbitrarily decide which laws to follow and which to ignore. You have free will and some people are just F'ed in the head.

Laws are sometimes unjust and should be changed, but what is and is not unjust is ALSO a matter of perspective. Ambiguity is the dambdest thing.

Copyright deniers conveniently sieze on the difference between outright "theft" and "copyright infringement", and will frequently narrow the discussion to just that point. Then they argue that point to death while missing the larger picture, which is that copyright infringement is *also* wrong (just as theft is). I agree that infringement isn't theft (something that I also stated above), but I also contend that in the context of a discussion of right and wrong, the difference is irrelevent. They are *both* wrong. Based on your initial post in this thread, it would appear that you agree with this.

I agree that from my perspective they are wrong but will give an example of exactly that im talking about..

My Brother went to Iraq to serve in the Army for a full tour. While there he obtained HUNDREDS or software programs and full length DVDs from what he called the "Hadji Stores" (his words not mine). The stores operated in open air markets and there were police everywhere, there was nobody there to tell the store owners that what they were doing was wrong.. They were just selling goods as far as they were concerned. Think about that...

However, I'm wondering why you would later choose to argue over the semantics of the issue when you admitted above (albeit somewhat sarcastically), that you agreed that the copyrighted Pangolin frames should not be distributed with Sergey's software. If you respect Pangolin's copyright claim, then you're essentially on the same page as everyone else in this thread already.

FOR THE RECORD - I respect the intellectual property rights that Pangolin has on material that is published by them. SO YES i AM on the same page as everyone else here..

But by pressing the issue of "alternate perspectives", it makes it sound like you're actually *not* respecting Pangolin's copyright and are using the "alternate perspectives" example as justification for people to violate the copyright. This may not have been your intention (and indeed, this does seem to contradict your initial post), but judging by my reaction (and that of Stuka and DZ above), it certainly seems to be the way that it was perceived.

Adam

Nobody can know my intention.. My intention was to point out to bill that "doing the right thing" is not nececarily going to be enough motivation for anyone to do anything.. The problem is that i never came back into the thread and clarified myself because I was busy and totally forgot. - my bad...


SO Buffo, how did i do?

[buffo]

At least you clarified your point better this time. And I'm glad that you agree that the copyright claim that Bill posted has merit. That issue appears to be settled.

But the rest of your argument concerning "perspective" and the "laws of man" has holes large enough that I could drive a truck through them.

First, I take issue with your contention that anarchy is acceptable - that it's "OK" for people to disregard laws that they deem inconvenient. Note that we're not talking about civil disobedience here, where people accept the consequences for their actions peacefully, as a means of protest. We're talking about people violating a law for personal gain with the expectation that they will get away with it... That there will be *no* punishment. That's what anarchy is. (Well, a large part of it anyway.)

If you're seriously going to argue that this is OK (and I can't imagine why you'd do so), then you'd better be able to back it up, because you're going up against several millennia of history that demonstrates the inherent need for communities to abide by an established set of laws (or social norms, or religious practices, or whatever you want to call it, depending on how far back you care to look or which society you choose to look at). I'm waiting for any facts you can provide to demonstrate that anarchy is (or ever was) a good idea... Because anarchy has always led to ruin, and laws have arose *from* anarchy, as a way to improve things, not make them worse. (Note: don't confuse revolution with anarchy in your reply.) Just because some societies have taken their laws to a ridiculous extreme (Germany, 1938; Russia, 1955; Afghanistan, 1995) that ended up harming the people doesn't mean that anarchy is any better.

Second, just because other countries do not prosecute copyright infringement doesn't make it (or them) right. There are INTERNATIONAL agreements in place to prevent copyright infringement. Some countries play by the rules, others don't. (Coincidentally, the one's that don't are also on everyone's shit list...) The open market piracy your brother saw in Iraq is no different that what you can find in Hong Kong or China. That doesn't mean it's legal, nor does it mean that it's "the right thing to do". (To quote an old cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right".)

To break your argument down into the most basic terms, consider this: If a psychopathic person truly believes that it's his duty to rape and murder every red-headed woman between the age of 18 and 25, does it follow that his "own perspective" (however warped it might be) is sufficient to justify his actions? Even if they are clearly against the "laws of man", as you so quaintly put it? Does he have the right to disregard the law? (Of course not!)

As for your "why bother trying to change the law" comment, the answer should be obvious. You change the law to correct a flaw that you see with the system. Your goal is to improve your quality of life, and by extension (whether it was your intention or not), you will also improve the quality of life for society as a whole. There are avenues you can pursue if you disagree with a law. But blatantly disregarding the law makes you a hypocrite at best, and an anarchist at worst. (Not to mention, it will also make you a convict in most countries. Is that really what you're advocating?)

And finally, now you see the benefit of multi-quoting. It makes it much easier to keep the discussion on track, doesn't it? (You'll notice that I avoided it, and it makes it harder to follow what we're talking about.)

Adam

[keeperx]

You missed the point..

I do not believe that any of that stuff is OK nor do I argue that its acceptable based on perspective..

I simply accept that i can not ever know what someone else's perspective may be therefore i can not assume that they agree with what i define as right and wrong.

I would have asked what the persons thoughts were about copyrights..

And multi-quoting only has its merits when you are attempting to disagree, or comment on, someones thoughts point by point. I do however see the merit of the multiquote. I again thank you for sticking to your end of the bargain and henceforth release you from its stipulations...

ps. when you assume you make an ASS out of UMA THURMAN ...