Expert C programming available for download

[aarklon]

Hi all,

I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here:: http://sunner.cn/courses/C/ebook/Exp...rogramming.pdf

[Alan Balmer]

On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:

Hi all,

I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here::

I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.

What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <vt************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:

Hi all,

I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here::

I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.

What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?

It starts with never again being taken seriously in comp.lang.c, and
I'm sure it only gets worse from there.
dave
(worse for the offender, that is)

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub .uwaterloo.ca
Of course we have vices. One of them is public ranting.
Quite disgusting, I must say. Let's see some more, shall we?
--Randy the Random in the scary devil monastery

[Skarmander]

Dave Vandervies wrote:

In article <vt************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:

Hi all,

I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here::

I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.

What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?

It starts with never again being taken seriously in comp.lang.c, and
I'm sure it only gets worse from there.

Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't a
crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"), and
"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

Of course violating copyright is a civil offense and quite punishable,
but I doubt pointing someone to copyrighted material hosted somewhere
constitutes any sort of offense. It may not be as morally agreeable as
(say) informing the author, but I doubt it's illegal. If it is, it's
certainly not because it's a "conspiracy ".

If you'd rather see "hanged, drawn and quartered" as the answer, you're
free to imagine that instead, of course...

S.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <43************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl>,
Skarmander <in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:
:Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't a
:crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"), and
:"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

That depends upon the jurisdiction.
--
Chocolate is "more than a food but less than a drug" -- RJ Huxtable

[Walter Roberson]

In article <43************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl>,
Skarmander <in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:

:Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't a
:crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"), and
:"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

recently in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more
than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony
--
Many food scientists have reported chocolate to be the single most
craved food. - Northwestern University, 2001

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:22:37 +0200, Skarmander
<in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:

In article <vt************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:
Hi all,

I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here::

I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.

What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?

It starts with never again being taken seriously in comp.lang.c, and
I'm sure it only gets worse from there.

Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't a
crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"),

Wrong. At least in the US, it can be a felony. The downloading of 63
copies of the work in question would being it to felony level.
and
"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is.
Of course violating copyright is a civil offense and quite punishable,
but I doubt pointing someone to copyrighted material hosted somewhere
constitutes any sort of offense. It may not be as morally agreeable as
(say) informing the author, but I doubt it's illegal.
Depends. From http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html

"The first is the doctrine of "contributo ry copyright infringement."
If you make something whose sole purpose is to facilitate others in
violating a copyright, and/or you encourage people to do it, and you
know you are doing this, you can be liable for contributory
infringement even though you didn't do the copying yourself."
If it is, it's
certainly not because it's a "conspiracy ".
How do you know? Are you sure that "aarklon", who "just happened" to
stumble across this website, isn't acting in conjunction with the
site's owner to increase traffic to the site? Unlikely, perhaps, but I
wouldn't be certain.
If you'd rather see "hanged, drawn and quartered" as the answer, you're
free to imagine that instead, of course...

S.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:22:37 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Skarmander
<in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:

Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't a
crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"), and
"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

Its worth noting that in order to have noticed the site, the OP must
almost certainly have accessed it. This involves downloading a copy of
the pages to his PC's browser cache. This action has been frequently
used to prosecute those accessing naughty pictures under the heading
"making an indecent image", even though they didn't retain a "real"
copy on their machine but merely viewed onscreen, and could trivially
be applied to copyright.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mabden]

"Alan Balmer" <al******@att.n et> wrote in message
news:p6******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:22:37 +0200, Skarmander
<in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:

Dave Vandervies wrote:

In article <vt************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
>here::

I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.

What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?

It starts with never again being taken seriously in comp.lang.c, and I'm sure it only gets worse from there.

zomg! As if it could get worse than that!
Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn't acrime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"),
Wrong. At least in the US, it can be a felony. The downloading of 63
copies of the work in question would being it to felony level.

And why would someone do THAT? (oh, and it's BRING not BEING) Does the
downloaded copy decay, and if so what is the half-life?

and
or
"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

It is in my mind.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is.

Hmmm... Felony Downloading. I can just see the other guys in The Big
House asking, "Whatcha in fo'?"
"I stole a book..." <grins all around> "ONLINE!!!" <they all take a step
back>

Anyhow, if you don't print and sell a few thousand copies yourself then
there is no monetary gain. Usually these things result in damages for
lost revenue and profit you made illegally. If you didn't make a dime,
they can't take the dime from you. And if you can't afford the paper
copy, they probably can't pay off the lawyer from what they can squeeze
out of your savings account. And if you don't make money writing C code
all day as an expert, then they just have to kill you, to make "an
example" out of you.

I wonder how many "billable hours" my 400MHz computer from the last
millennium will cover? "Assets?! We don't got no stinking assets..."

--
Mabden

[Alan Balmer]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:18:28 GMT, "Mabden" <mabden@sbc_glo bal.net>
wrote:

"Alan Balmer" <al******@att.n et> wrote in message
news:p6******* *************** **********@4ax. com...

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:22:37 +0200, Skarmander
<in*****@dontma ilme.com> wrote:

>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>> In article <vt************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
>> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:
>>
>>>On 20 Sep 2005 15:07:21 -0700, aa*****@gmail.c om wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
>>>>here::
>>>
>>>I'm sure Peter will be happy to hear that.
>>>
>>>What's the penalty for conspiracy to infringe on copyright?
>>
>> It starts with never again being taken seriously in comp.lang.c,and >> I'm sure it only gets worse from there.
zomg! As if it could get worse than that!
>Yes, but the moral indignation aside, "copyright infringement" isn'ta >crime in the technical sense ("a violation of criminal law"),

Wrong. At least in the US, it can be a felony. The downloading of 63
copies of the work in question would being it to felony level.

And why would someone do THAT? (oh, and it's BRING not BEING) Does the
downloaded copy decay, and if so what is the half-life?

Hint - the website undoubtedly has more than one visitor. If the
intent were to give an illegal copy to only one person, email would be
much more efficient.

> and
or
>"conspiracy to infringe on copyright" is not an existing offense.

It is in my mind.

Conspiracy to commit a felony is.

Hmmm... Felony Downloading. I can just see the other guys in The Big
House asking, "Whatcha in fo'?"
"I stole a book..." <grins all around> "ONLINE!!!" <they all take a step
back>

Anyhow, if you don't print and sell a few thousand copies yourself then
there is no monetary gain. Usually these things result in damages for
lost revenue and profit you made illegally. If you didn't make a dime,
they can't take the dime from you.

Don't bet your house on it. If the copyright is registered, and I'll
bet this one is, they can impose penalties over and above actual
damages, and add in the court costs and the legal costs of the victim.

I'm curious - what is your reason for encouraging copyright
infringement?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net