Virus on page?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:34:41 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 25/03/2019 16:30, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:04:51 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 25/03/2019 15:18, Shadow *LIED* *AGAIN*

"only" made *ONE* copy and saved it in his Dropbox account.

You can only get 6 months in jail for that. Stealing
copyrighted material without intent to distribute.

Post corrected to reflect the truth.

OTOH, if you posted a PUBLIC link to the *STOLEN* picture,
that qualifies for 10 years in jail (distributing stolen copyrighted
material):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d67fm4589...%20Harvard.jpg

(the link is safe now, the DMCA took it down)

Is this what you are looking for?

https://CUT_POSSIBLE_MALICIOUS_LINK

No, I'm not interested.

So, just where *IS* the image of a Harvard aircraft which was stolen
from the Tekrider website? It's not there now ..

Who cares ?

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318192230/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD. It doesn't actually exist. Get a real job
like building a house.

Are you really claiming data doesn't exist?! Data is what drives policy,
innovation, science and industry. Without data modern society would fall
apart.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

If I invented a motor that was twice as powerful

It's not a creative work so isn't protected by copyright.

Don't interrupt with no point whatsoever.

Don't snip uncomfortable argument.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

Your constant outrage must be tiring.

You're the one that's tiring, learn to speak proper English.

Vernacular is proper English.

Yeah right. Try the **** Glaswegians come out with.

Aye, get tae!

And by the way I'm not speaking, I'm writing.

Irrelevant.

Nope.

In article
XnsAA1CEC21C5BF3HT1@tR32dly7UfV8U4pdp5776frANo87E 6uir.t9k26eIT1eEsEL6BL
nEAc9Oa79Cft, Diesel wrote:


When nospam claimed Malwarebytes was an antivirus, I stopped
reading their posts. [g] I know what the software is and isn't, I
worked for the ****ing company in Malware Research; not sales.
*GRIN*

semantic bull****. while technically there is a minor difference,
it is irrelevant in this context and the terms are used
interchangeably by just about everyone anyway.

There's no semantic bull**** involved here. The so called minor
difference is whether or not the malware has the required functional
code for self replication. If it doesn't, it's NOT a virus (or a
worm). If it does, it could be a virus or a worm, or both! as I
previously took the lengthy time to explain.

i'm well aware of the difference long before your explanation.

calling malwarebytes antivirus or antimalware is entirely irrelevant in
the context i used it, which was *not* about malware or viruses. it
doesn't change what was being discussed, which was in a separate thread
anyway.

people use both terms interchangeably. even malwarebytes considers them
to be equivalent terms.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/antivirus/
For the most part, ³antivirus² and ³anti-malware² mean the same
thing. They both refer to software designed to detect, protect
against, and remove malicious software.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD. It doesn't actually exist. Get a real job
like building a house.

Are you really claiming data doesn't exist?! Data is what drives policy,
innovation, science and industry. Without data modern society would fall
apart.

It's just a ****ing song. People would do it for fun. Or we could just live without it. I certainly won't give away my money for music.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any? They don't do any work to make the 2nd and subsequent CDs.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

If I invented a motor that was twice as powerful

It's not a creative work so isn't protected by copyright.

Don't interrupt with no point whatsoever.

Don't snip uncomfortable argument.

I never snip unless repetition is detected.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

Your constant outrage must be tiring.

You're the one that's tiring, learn to speak proper English.

Vernacular is proper English.

Yeah right. Try the **** Glaswegians come out with.

Aye, get tae!

A real Glaswegian would never omit the ****.

And by the way I'm not speaking, I'm writing.

Irrelevant.

Nope.

It's just a different medium.

--
$$$ not found -- (A)bort (R)efinance (B)ankrupt

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD. It doesn't actually exist. Get a real job
like building a house.

Are you really claiming data doesn't exist?! Data is what drives policy,
innovation, science and industry. Without data modern society would fall
apart.

It's just a ****ing song. People would do it for fun. Or we could just live without it.

Doubtful. It's part of humanity.

I certainly won't give away my money for music.

That's obvious. Doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to protect their
livelihoods.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any? They don't do any work to make the 2nd
and subsequent CDs.

Because it's their work! It's taken weeks or months of effort to create an
album, so they deserve more than 80p.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts. It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!

Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

snip

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts. It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!



A carpenter my give you what you need to live but an artist gives you a
reason to live.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:49:00 -0000, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

snip

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts. It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!



A carpenter my give you what you need to live but an artist gives you a
reason to live.

Nature is art, we don't need artists. And many would do it as a hobby simply for the love of it. In fact art for money won't have the same effort put into it.

--
"Good morning" is a contradiction in terms.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD. It doesn't actually exist. Get a real job
like building a house.

Are you really claiming data doesn't exist?! Data is what drives policy,
innovation, science and industry. Without data modern society would fall
apart.

It's just a ****ing song. People would do it for fun. Or we could just live without it.

Doubtful. It's part of humanity.

Only for chavs.

I certainly won't give away my money for music.

That's obvious. Doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to protect their
livelihoods.

If you want to pay for songs, I ain't stopping you.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any? They don't do any work to make the 2nd
and subsequent CDs.

Because it's their work! It's taken weeks or months of effort to create an
album, so they deserve more than 80p.

Then they should sell it for more than 80p to the publisher.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts.

Wrong.

It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

And they're free to pay for those if they wish. I don't think they're worth paying for, if I couldn't copy them, I'd do without. Either way the artist gets nothing.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!

Most houses are pretty much the same.

--
And lose not thine airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.

On 03/27/2019 1:19 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris
wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that
prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more
than once.* Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a
painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my
copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with
PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get
compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite
easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All
creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It
is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires
skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people
like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded
; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their
work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass
it off as
their own.

Why not?* It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a
real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD.* It doesn't actually exist.* Get a real
job
like building a house.

Are you really claiming data doesn't exist?! Data is what drives
policy,
innovation, science and industry. Without data modern society would
fall
apart.

It's just a ****ing song.* People would do it for fun.* Or we could
just live without it.

Doubtful. It's part of humanity.

Only for chavs.

I certainly won't give away my money for music.

That's obvious. Doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to protect their
livelihoods.

If you want to pay for songs, I ain't stopping you.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax,
distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any?* They don't do any work to make the
2nd
and subsequent CDs.

Because it's their work! It's taken weeks or months of effort to
create an
album, so they deserve more than 80p.

Then they should sell it for more than 80p to the publisher.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the
defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts.

Wrong.

It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books,
music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

And they're free to pay for those if they wish.* I don't think they're
worth paying for, if I couldn't copy them, I'd do without.* Either way
the artist gets nothing.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!

Most houses are pretty much the same.


You live in a cave?

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

I certainly won't give away my money for music.

That's obvious. Doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to protect their
livelihoods.

If you want to pay for songs, I ain't stopping you.

You're missing the point. Copyright allows artists to maintain their
livelihood.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any? They don't do any work to make the 2nd
and subsequent CDs.

Because it's their work! It's taken weeks or months of effort to create an
album, so they deserve more than 80p.

Then they should sell it for more than 80p to the publisher.

That's not how it works. The contract is that they are paid a fraction as
royalty.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts.

Wrong.

It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

And they're free to pay for those if they wish. I don't think they're
worth paying for, if I couldn't copy them, I'd do without.

Point is you can't. It's illegal to infringe copyright.

Either way the artist gets nothing.

That's unpleasant; going out of your way to deny someone a wage.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!

Most houses are pretty much the same.

Are you certified blind?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Chris wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

snip

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts. It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!



A carpenter my give you what you need to live but an artist gives you a
reason to live.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 19:45:16 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:18:55 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:48:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

I certainly won't give away my money for music.

That's obvious. Doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to protect their
livelihoods.

If you want to pay for songs, I ain't stopping you.

You're missing the point. Copyright allows artists to maintain their
livelihood.

Not my problem. They should earn a proper living aswell as their arty farty ****.

Also the majority (over 80%) of retail cost of a CD is tax, distribution
costs and paying middle men.

So why should the artist get any? They don't do any work to make the 2nd
and subsequent CDs.

Because it's their work! It's taken weeks or months of effort to create an
album, so they deserve more than 80p.

Then they should sell it for more than 80p to the publisher.

That's not how it works. The contract is that they are paid a fraction as
royalty.

Stupid system.

Get a real job? Nice. You have no clue. I feel sorry for the defendant if
you're on the jury. I can't be arsed with this anymore.

A real job creates things that people need, like houses.

Society needs the arts.

Wrong.

It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books, music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

And they're free to pay for those if they wish. I don't think they're
worth paying for, if I couldn't copy them, I'd do without.

Point is you can't. It's illegal to infringe copyright.

It's only a civil offence.

Either way the artist gets nothing.

That's unpleasant; going out of your way to deny someone a wage.

I'm not going out of my way. I don't believe what they've done deserves money. If I couldn't download it for free, I wouldn't have it.

You may not appreciate it, but it is a need and desire for us as
individuals and a country. Creativity is what drives us forward.

We need houses too although without creative architects we'd all live in
Soviet style blocks. No thank you!

Most houses are pretty much the same.

Are you certified blind?

Show me a street of houses you believe are worthy of being called artistic. You may consult Google Maps.

--
"A goal is a dream taken seriously." - Henry David Thoreau

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

It does "create" things by definition, it is
"creative" FFS. The economy gains billions from all the film, books,
music,
games, theatre etc that people enjoy.

And they're free to pay for those if they wish. I don't think they're
worth paying for, if I couldn't copy them, I'd do without.

Point is you can't. It's illegal to infringe copyright.

It's only a civil offence.

it can be criminal.

nospam
Tue, 26 Mar 2019
09:35:18 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

In article
XnsAA1CEC21C5BF3HT1@tR32dly7UfV8U4pdp5776frANo87E 6uir.t9k26eIT1eEs
EL6BL nEAc9Oa79Cft, Diesel wrote:


When nospam claimed Malwarebytes was an antivirus, I stopped
reading their posts. [g] I know what the software is and
isn't, I worked for the ****ing company in Malware Research;
not sales. *GRIN*

semantic bull****. while technically there is a minor
difference, it is irrelevant in this context and the terms are
used interchangeably by just about everyone anyway.

There's no semantic bull**** involved here. The so called minor
difference is whether or not the malware has the required
functional code for self replication. If it doesn't, it's NOT a
virus (or a worm). If it does, it could be a virus or a worm, or
both! as I previously took the lengthy time to explain.

i'm well aware of the difference long before your explanation.

I have no way of knowing that, based on what you wrote previously.

calling malwarebytes antivirus or antimalware is entirely
irrelevant in the context i used it, which was *not* about malware
or viruses. it doesn't change what was being discussed, which was
in a separate thread anyway.

people use both terms interchangeably. even malwarebytes considers
them to be equivalent terms.

As I wrote previously, I'm not interested in sales jargon. I once
told another technician when they claimed (like you) that viruses and
malware are interchangable the following, to sum it up and end the
otherwise, dull as **** all conversation. You don't treat the flu
with antibiotics.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/antivirus/
For the most part, ³antivirus² and ³anti-malware² mean the same
thing. They both refer to software designed to detect, protect
against, and remove malicious software.

Nice sales marketing on a very thin line. I expect nothing better
from a company that actually recommends (knowing full well their
products engine/database/development/research team limitations)
replacing your antivirus product with theirs. A foolish decision, on
a good day.


--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. -
Nietzsche

On 24/03/2019 21.33, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Anyway, enough. The fact is it is done. We have proven it. You can
ramble all you want against the practice, won't change it a bit. It is
done, no matter your complaints.

you haven't proven anything. you're just babbling.

partial fonts are rarely used in a pdf because there is no point in
bothering. the savings are not worth the trouble.

you personally might do it, but you'd be the exception, and you're just
making things difficult for those who have to read your pdfs.


I personally don't do anything. I use software, and the software is
designed to do it, despite your bablings to the contrary.

--
Cheers, Carlos.