My lasersoft

[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 ...

[Sergey]

to soforene: added all features you asked including mouse wheel support.

Optimized code and now it is a bit faster.
Opened source code for EPP laser controller.
Attention! I've found mistake. INT0 input from microcontroller must be connected to DataStrobe pin(14) of LPT connector. See new schematic in archive.

[soforene]

What a bloody nice chap !!
Cheers matey.

I'll have to think of something extra to ask for now.........

[soforene]

Just had a chance to play with this latest version and it's a corker.
(It's still showing as Version 0.10 in the "About" drop down though).

As I previously mentioned, I'm only using it as a Frames browser and it does the job magnificently.

What next for Super Best Friend Sergey?

Well........ Support for Pangolin QM2000 would be nice so I could view the frames through my projector.

And it always opens with the installation directry as the target directory.
Perhaps some log or ini file which keeps track of the last opened directory would be nice.
I did work around this by having a shortcut on the Windows desktop to Laser Composer.exe and setting the properties of "Start in" to my frames directory.

But these are teensy weensy nitpicks and as I said, Sergey is to be commended on this smashing piece of work.

Nice one Fella !!

[drlava]

Hey sergey looks like you are covering some ground here... Have you tried Spaghetti?

One recommendation I have is to keep yourself from locking in and designing this around the idea of palettes, especially default 64 color palettes. If you must use 64 color palettes, please enable your reader to read the format 2 as it adds a LOT of flexibility to the color space. Remember, there are standard 256 color palettes and the version 4 and 5 formats don't even use palettes!

[Sergey]

I'm very surprised if Pangolin doesnt have a good frame browser.
Supporting QM2000 without having it for tests...

to Dr:
No, I didnt try Spaghetti. I made that application just for control my hardware. And hardware is still single color(but TTL RGY in progress). In future I hope to add format 2, 4, 5 but only for preview mode.