By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
429,302 Members | 3,621 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 429,302 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Purchasing The Standard

P: n/a
After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I figured
it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard rather than
relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent the standard. Even
the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is capable of inaccurately
representing the standard.

I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for 14882 as
suggested.

That brought up the following page...

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/ne...82&searchType=
docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16

Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me the
difference between the various items presented? I am confused about which one
would be the most accurate source of information.

What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003
?

The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter can
be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self likes the
latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
order it.

Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is superceded? If
it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait. And what about all the
TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or must they also be purchased?

Any insight would be appreciated.

Regards,
Brian F. Seaberg

P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy either the
standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most recommended? On the
one hand the standard is probably pretty dry reading, but it is authoritative
and I want to know the whole truth. On the other hand the Stroustrup book
probably discusses not only the elements of the language but the best practices
associated with those language elements which may be more appropriate for
someone who isn't going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the
language very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than know
the language inside and out but not know how to apply it effectively.


Jul 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
76 Replies


P: n/a
DaKoadMunky wrote:
After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I figured
it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard rather than
relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent the standard. Even
the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is capable of inaccurately
representing the standard.

I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for 14882 as
suggested.

That brought up the following page...

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/ne...82&searchType=
docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16

Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me the
difference between the various items presented? I am confused about which one
would be the most accurate source of information.

What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003
?

The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter can
be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self likes the
latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
order it.
They are the same.



Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is superceded? If
it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait.
Years.

And what about all the
TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or must they also be purchased?
The 14882:2003 is the latest official ISO C++ standard (which contains
fixes of 14882:1998, so it is the 14882:1998 bug-fixed :-) ).

P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy either the
standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most recommended?
The *book* of course. The standard is intended for the compiler
implementers and if you decide to pursue a career as a language lawyer
in here. :-)

On the
one hand the standard is probably pretty dry reading, but it is authoritative
and I want to know the whole truth. On the other hand the Stroustrup book
probably discusses not only the elements of the language but the best practices
associated with those language elements which may be more appropriate for
someone who isn't going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the
language very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than know
the language inside and out but not know how to apply it effectively.

The book no question. The book will make you not only a better C++
programmer but a better programmer too. It provides much insight.


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos
Jul 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
"DaKoadMunky" <da*********@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20***************************@mb-m11.aol.com...
What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003 ?

The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The latter can be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and unemployed self likes the latter much better, but I want to be aware of what I won't be getting if I
order it.


You can buy the same text, albeit with a different page layout, as a Wiley
book for between $55 and $65, depending on where you look. The book is
called "The C++ Standard", and its ISBN is 0-470-84674-7.
Jul 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
DaKoadMunky posted:
After having fancied myself a C++ programmer for the last nine years I
figured it was about time that I actually obtain a copy of the standard
rather than relying on other sources that claim to accurately represent
the standard. Even the best intentioned author or newsgroup poster is
capable of inaccurately representing the standard.

I followed the FAQ link to http://www.techstreet.com/ and searched for
14882 as suggested.

That brought up the following page...

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/ne...4882&searchTyp
e= docno&newSearch=1&sort=rel&submit.x=15&submit.y=16

Aside from the format in which they are distributed, can anyone tell me
the difference between the various items presented? I am confused
about which one would be the most accurate source of information.

What is the difference between ISO/IEC 14882:2003 and INCITS/ISO/IEC
14882:2003 ?

The former can only be purchased as a softcover book for $325. The
latter can be purchased as a PDF document for $18. My broke and
unemployed self likes the latter much better, but I want to be aware of
what I won't be getting if I order it.

Furthermore, how long will it be until the current standard is
superceded? If it is only six-months to a year maybe I should wait.
And what about all the TC's and TR's. Are those freely available or
must they also be purchased?

Any insight would be appreciated.

Regards,
Brian F. Seaberg

P.S. I am also thinking about getting TCPPLSE. If I could only buy
either the standard document or the Stroustrup book, which would most
recommended? On the one hand the standard is probably pretty dry
reading, but it is authoritative and I want to know the whole truth.
On the other hand the Stroustrup book probably discusses not only the
elements of the language but the best practices associated with those
language elements which may be more appropriate for someone who isn't
going to be writing compilers and tools. I want to know the language
very well, but I can't say I want to be a language lawyer. I would
rather know how to effectively use a subset of the language rather than
know the language inside and out but not know how to apply it
effectively.


I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you. Just
remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
hi i would be really gratefull if u can email me the standard aswell,

vasudev + sharma + 1 + at + hot + mail + .com
Jul 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
JKop wrote:
<snip>

I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.
Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
abhorrant things.

- Pete


-JKop


Jul 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Pete C." wrote:

JKop wrote:
<snip>

I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.


Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
abhorrant things.

- Pete


-JKop


Is the PDF protected against printing and/or text-select-copy?
Jul 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Pete C. posted:
JKop wrote:
<snip>

I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.


Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent
copyright violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info
to prevent such abhorrant things.

- Pete


-JKop



In my day, when you bought something, it was yours. You could set it on
fire, throw it off a cliff, give it to a friend, or eat it.

-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
dumboo posted:
hi i would be really gratefull if u can email me the standard aswell,

vasudev + sharma + 1 + at + hot + mail + .com


The 1998 version?
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #9

P: n/a

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:31*****************@news.indigo.ie...
Pete C. posted:
JKop wrote:
<snip>

I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.


Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent
copyright violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info
to prevent such abhorrant things.

- Pete


-JKop



In my day, when you bought something, it was yours. You could set it on
fire, throw it off a cliff, give it to a friend, or eat it.

-JKop


And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at a
time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to follow
that at least, right? Copying the book and handing copies out to all your
friends was always illegal, even if you did buy it.

-karen
Jul 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
karen posted:
And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at
a time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to
follow that at least, right? Copying the book and handing copies out
to all your friends was always illegal, even if you did buy it.

-karen


I don't care.

-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #11

P: n/a

karen wrote:
[...]
And, if you treat it like a book, you can only lend it to one person at a
time, and you can't use it while it is lent out. You were going to follow
that at least, right?


http://www.copyright.gov/reports/stu...executive.html

<quote>

The first sale doctrine is primarily a limitation on the copyright
owner's exclusive right of distribution. It does not limit the
exclusive right of reproduction. While disposition of a work
downloaded to a floppy disk would only implicate the distribution
right, the transmission of a work from one person to another over
the Internet results in a reproduction on the recipient's computer,
even if the sender subsequently deletes the original copy of the
work. This activity therefore entails an exercise of an exclusive
right that is not covered by section 109.

Proponents of expansion of the scope of section 109 to include the
transmission and deletion of a digital file argue that this
activity is essentially identical to the transfer of a physical
copy and that the similarities outweigh the differences. While it
is true that there are similarities, we find the analogy to the
physical world to be flawed and unconvincing.

</quote>

In the totally perverse view of Red Hat, Inc. ("digital first
sale" almost completely nullifies the GPL), Time Warner, Inc.,
etc., teleportation

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation

would be illigal.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov posted:
<quote>

The first sale doctrine is primarily a limitation on the copyright
owner's exclusive right of distribution. It does not limit the
exclusive right of reproduction. While disposition of a work
downloaded to a floppy disk would only implicate the distribution
right, the transmission of a work from one person to another over
the Internet results in a reproduction on the recipient's computer,
even if the sender subsequently deletes the original copy of the
work. This activity therefore entails an exercise of an exclusive
right that is not covered by section 109.

Proponents of expansion of the scope of section 109 to include the
transmission and deletion of a digital file argue that this
activity is essentially identical to the transfer of a physical
copy and that the similarities outweigh the differences. While it
is true that there are similarities, we find the analogy to the
physical world to be flawed and unconvincing.

</quote>


So let's go out to international waters with a laptop, copy it onto a
floppy, and come back.

-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #13

P: n/a

JKop wrote:
[...]
So let's go out to international waters with a laptop, copy it onto a
floppy, and come back.


Yeah.

< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

Red Hat, Inc.:

Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Library Associations:

First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
throughout society.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #14

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
JKop wrote:
<snip>
I have the Standard from 1998. If you want it I'll email it to you.
Just remember to muddle your email address a little, eg.

jo*********@blah.com
Anyone here got the latest Standard and would offer to email it to me?
Sharing is caring.


Absolutly not. Aside from the fact that that would be a blatent copyright
violation, the PDFs are watermarked with your purchase info to prevent such
abhorrant things.

- Pete


-JKop

Is the PDF protected against printing and/or text-select-copy?


INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882:2003 is not. I can't comment on other versions.

Alan
Jul 22 '05 #15

P: n/a
> The 1998 version?

yeah at,
vthe2 + @ + yahoo +.com
Jul 22 '05 #16

P: n/a
I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

$65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
for schools in many poor countries.
Jul 22 '05 #17

P: n/a

Mats Weber wrote:

I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
Or something like http://www.unix.org/version3/iso_std.html would also
work nicely. C#/CLI is also free in spite of ISO label.
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?


Lack of independent from ISO standard development, I guess.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0nfs0.sdrc.com

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mats Weber posted:
I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

$65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
for schools in many poor countries.


And I think that's a disgrace. Sure I'm even in a 1st World country and I'm
not about to fork over $18 for the thing.

Some-one please email it to me at:

jkop + @ + eircom.net
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #19

P: n/a
Mats Weber posted:
I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

$65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
for schools in many poor countries.


If you've got the latest Standard, I'd be grateful if you could please email
it to me at:

JKop + @ + eircom + . + net
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #20

P: n/a
In message <R0*****************@news.indigo.ie>, JKop <NU**@NULL.NULL>
writes
Mats Weber posted:
I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

$65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
for schools in many poor countries.


If you've got the latest Standard, I'd be grateful if you could please email
it to me at:

JKop + @ + eircom + . + net

That's called "entrapment".

--
Richard Herring
Jul 22 '05 #21

P: n/a
JKop wrote:
If you've got the latest Standard, I'd be grateful if you could please email
it to me at:

For someone who requests help from this group so much, you are certainly
going out of your way to annoy the regulars. I wouldn't be surprised if
you weren't hitting the bottom of a number of killfiles right now.


Brian Rodenborn
Jul 22 '05 #22

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
For someone who requests help from this group so much, you are certainly
going out of your way to annoy the regulars. I wouldn't be surprised if
you weren't hitting the bottom of a number of killfiles right now.


Speaking of which, can anybody tell me
how I can get my Mozilla newsreader to killfile Brian Rodenborn?

Any help would be *very* much appreciated.
Jul 22 '05 #23

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
Speaking of which, can anybody tell me
how I can get my Mozilla newsreader to killfile Brian Rodenborn?


You were given instructions previously. I can't believe even you are
stupid enough not to be able to figure out the relatively simple
filtering of the Mozilla newsreader, ergo I conclude this is another in
your long campaign of trolling this newsgroup.


Brian Rodenborn
Jul 22 '05 #24

P: n/a
Richard Herring wrote:

That's called "entrapment".


Nothing as sophisticated as that. Just plain theft.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Jul 22 '05 #25

P: n/a

Pete Becker wrote:
[...]
Just plain theft.


Uhmm. Digital first sale aside for a moment,

"A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named
Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was
prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The
Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it
was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright
of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-
theft statutes, had to be invoked." -- Mark Rasch at The Reg

But "piracy" is okay. (it conjures images of romantic heroes ;-) )

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #26

P: n/a
Pete Becker posted:
JKop wrote:

I'm requesting that some-one supply me with a certain array
of bits. Alternatively I could acquire this array of bits for a hefty
unjustified price elsewhere. The former is more appealing.


Just plain theft.


Let's see. Theft is where someone-one deprives someone-else of a possession.
If I thieve your car, I am depriving you of your car.

If I copy your copy of the C++ Standard, am I depriving you of it? If not,
then that's not good old run-of-the-mill "plain theft". And if it is theft
at all, what label would you give it?

If I call it "Just plain love", is it better?
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #27

P: n/a
P.J. Plauger posted:
You've already gone on record as an unabashed thief. No need to
haggle over the definition of "taking" with *you*. I wouldn't
trust you around any collection of molecules I value, either.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

Of which record do you speak?

Your post is OFF-TOPIC here.

Perhaps you would be better off posting to one of the following:

alt.christnet.ethics
alt.magick.ethics
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #28

P: n/a
"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:IV*****************@news.indigo.ie...
Pete Becker posted:
JKop wrote:

I'm requesting that some-one supply me with a certain array
of bits. Alternatively I could acquire this array of bits for a hefty
unjustified price elsewhere. The former is more appealing.

Just plain theft.


Let's see. Theft is where someone-one deprives someone-else of a

possession. If I thieve your car, I am depriving you of your car.

If I copy your copy of the C++ Standard, am I depriving you of it? If not,
then that's not good old run-of-the-mill "plain theft". And if it is theft
at all, what label would you give it?

If I call it "Just plain love", is it better?


Still just plain theft.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com
Jul 22 '05 #29

P: n/a
P.J. Plauger posted:
Still just plain theft.

Then I'm a thief, get over it.
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #30

P: n/a

Pete Becker wrote:
[...]
http://www.netjus.org/pages/giurispr...e=12&pagina=10
("JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE WHITE join,
dissenting. ...")


Just plain theft. 18 USC 2314 is not the only statute that makes taking
things that don't belong to you a crime, fact free quotes from "Mark
Rasch at The Reg" notwithstanding.


Fact free? Go read the decision (starting at "pagina=1").

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #31

P: n/a

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:

[... JKop asking for the PDF ...]
You've already gone on record as an unabashed thief.


You're talking bullshit. Copyright infringement != theft, to begin with.

And, BTW...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...03BD1%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0jj3%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...26713%40web.de

Why don't you do the same as Balmer? I'm sure JKop would be ashamed. ;-)

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #32

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov posted:
And, BTW...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...03BD1%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...qbf82qfeb0jj3%
404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...26713%40web.de

Why don't you do the same as Balmer? I'm sure JKop would be ashamed.
;-)

regards,
alexander.

Alexander, sharing is caring!
JKop + @ + eircom + . + net
-JKOp

Jul 22 '05 #33

P: n/a

JKop wrote:
[...]
JKop + @ + eircom + . + net


I can pass other to you that Balmer's copy. But it's C99, not C++. I
don't have a spare C++ copy and I won't buy one for you. But I can
lend you my copy for a week or two. Given that I don't know you [and
that I'll have to delete my own copy], I'll need a bond. Just 18
bucks. IBAN/BIC: DE09 7001 0080 0810 4648 09 PBNKDEFF.

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:56:58 +0200, Mats Weber <ma***@bluewin.ch>
wrote:
I think the standard should be available for free in electronic form, as
is the case for the Ada standard, which is an ISO standard just as C++
is. If it can be done for Ada, why can it not be done for C++ ?

$65, or $18 payable by credit card for a download, puts it out of reach
for schools in many poor countries.


I think that anyone who *needs* a copy of the C++ standard can afford
$18, regardless of where they live.

Tom
--
C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
Jul 22 '05 #35

P: n/a
tom_usenet posted:
I think that anyone who *needs* a copy of the C++ standard can afford
$18, regardless of where they live.

Bullshit.

What if a little kid in Calcutta likes programming in C++? They make less
than 50cents a day over there.

Should the kid not eat for 36 days? Or should the kid only eat half as much
and wait 72 days?
My perrogative: Why pay for something when you don't have to?
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #36

P: n/a
JKop wrote:
tom_usenet posted:

I think that anyone who *needs* a copy of the C++ standard can afford
$18, regardless of where they live.
Bullshit.

What if a little kid in Calcutta likes programming in C++? They make less
than 50cents a day over there.


Bullshit.

If a kid only makes 50 cents a day it is unlikely that that kid:
1. Knows about C++;
2. Wants to learn C++;
3. Can afford the facilities needed (like a PC, electricity...etc).

And even if that kid knows about C++, wants to learn it and can for some
reason afford a PC and the other stuff needed, the C++ standard would be
of little or no use to him or her (or anyone else wanting to learn C++).

It seems that many people who don't have access to that document greatly
overrate its usefulness. For most people this document is more a luxury
than a necessity. Time and (in your case optionally) money is usually
better spend on a good C++ book.
Should the kid not eat for 36 days? Or should the kid only eat half as much
and wait 72 days?
If the situation is that desperate obtaining a copy of the C++ standard
would be one of the last things on his or her mind, if at all.
My perrogative: Why pay for something when you don't have to?


So you don't mind if I take your possessions? If that is your
prerogative why bother to learn something (like C++) and/or work if you
just take what you want?
Jul 22 '05 #37

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Pete Becker wrote:
[...]
http://www.netjus.org/pages/giurispr...e=12&pagina=10
("JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE WHITE join,
dissenting. ...")


Just plain theft. 18 USC 2314 is not the only statute that makes taking
things that don't belong to you a crime, fact free quotes from "Mark
Rasch at The Reg" notwithstanding.


Fact free? Go read the decision (starting at "pagina=1").


How will that add facts to the quote from "Mark Rasch at the Reg"?

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Jul 22 '05 #38

P: n/a
"Alexander Terekhov" <te******@web.de> wrote in message
news:40***************@web.de...
"P.J. Plauger" wrote:

[... JKop asking for the PDF ...]
You've already gone on record as an unabashed thief.
You're talking bullshit.


Uh, no. Read the newsgroup archives. The record is clear enough.
Copyright infringement != theft, to begin with.


I can't say your ethical credentials are high enough for me
to give much credit to your rationalizations either.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com
Jul 22 '05 #39

P: n/a

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:
[...]
I can't say your ethical credentials are high enough for me
You mean

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca5...i?NoticeID=320

<?>

Fair use.
to give much credit to your rationalizations either.


Read DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #40

P: n/a
"Alexander Terekhov" <te******@web.de> wrote in message
news:40***************@web.de...
"P.J. Plauger" wrote:
[...]
I can't say your ethical credentials are high enough for me
You mean

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca5...i?NoticeID=320

<?>


No. Trust me, you don't want to pursue this topic any further
in this public forum.
Fair use.
to give much credit to your rationalizations either.


Read DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).


(You're the only person I know who quibbles by footnote.)

Just keep rationalizing. My hand is firmly over my wallet pocket.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com
Jul 22 '05 #41

P: n/a

"P.J. Plauger" wrote:

[... ethical credentials/www.chillingeffects.org ...]
No. Trust me, you don't want to pursue this topic any further
in this public forum.


Why?

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #42

P: n/a

Pete Becker wrote:

[... just plan theft/Dowling ...]
How will that add facts to the quote from "Mark Rasch at the Reg"?


You'll discover the facts Rash was talking about. Copyright
infringment may be criminal [not only subject to civil penalties],
but it doesn't make it "just plain theft".

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #43

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Pete Becker wrote:

[... just plan theft/Dowling ...]
How will that add facts to the quote from "Mark Rasch at the Reg"?
You'll discover the facts Rash was talking about.


Since you snipped the words that I actually used, I'll repeat them:
Just plain theft. 18 USC 2314 is not the only statute that makes taking
things that don't belong to you a crime, fact free quotes from "Mark
Rasch at The Reg" notwithstanding.


Explain, please, how reading something will turn fact free quotes from
"Mark Rasch at The Reg" into fact filled quotes.
Copyright
infringment may be criminal [not only subject to civil penalties],
but it doesn't make it "just plain theft".


A distinction without a difference, if it exists at all.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Jul 22 '05 #44

P: n/a

Pete Becker wrote:
[...]
A distinction without a difference, if it exists at all.


Read the decision (and the quote). Here's another quote:

<quote source=digital-law-online.info>

Section 506 makes a number of things criminal offenses, including
fraudulent copyright notices, fraudulent removal of copyright notices,
and making false statements in a copyright registration application.
{FN85: 17 U.S.C. §506} But it primarily criminalizes copyright
infringement when it is done "willfully" and either "for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial gain” or when the
infringement exceeds a total retail value of $1,000 within any 180-
day period. If the total retail value exceeds $2,500 and ten copies,
the crime becomes a felony with the possibility of a $250,000 fine and
five years in prison (ten years on a second offense), {FN86: 18 U.S.C.
§2319} although the sentencing guidelines require that the retail
value be substantially above $2,500 for any prison time, and in the
millions to reach the maximum penalty.

Although the copyright statutes do not contain a definition for
"willfully," the term has been given meaning in a number of past
court decisions on copyright and other law. At the passage of the
latest amendment to the criminal provision, Senator Orrin Hatch, the
Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, discussed the
importance of the willfulness requirement:

I place great store by the "willfulness" requirement in the bill.
Although there is on-going debate about what precisely is the
"willfulness" standard in the Copyright Act – as the House Report
records – I submit that in the LaMacchia context "willful" ought to
mean the intent to violate a known legal duty. The Supreme Court has
given the term "willful" that construction in numerous cases in the
past 25 years . . . As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that is
the interpretation that I give to this term. Otherwise, I would have
objected and not allowed this bill to pass by unanimous consent.
Under this standard, then, an educator who in good faith believes
that he or she is engaging in a fair use of copyrighted material
could not be prosecuted under the bill. . . .

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to point out two areas that
are susceptible to interpretation mischief.

First, the bill amends the term "financial gain" as used in the
Copyright Act to include "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of
anything of value, including receipt of other copyrighted works."
The intent of the change is to hold criminally liable those who do
not receive or expect to receive money but who receive tangible
value. It would be contrary to the intent of the provision,
according to my understanding, if "anything of value" would be so
broadly read as to include enhancement of reputation or value
remote from the criminal act, such as a job promotion. {FN87: 143
Cong. Rec. S12689-S12690}

</quote>

See the difference?

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #45

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:

[lengthy quote describing elementary legal concept of mens rea snipped]

See the difference?


Where does it say that violating criminal laws pertaining to copyright
isn't theft?

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Jul 22 '05 #46

P: n/a

Pete Becker wrote:

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

[lengthy quote describing elementary legal concept of mens rea snipped]

See the difference?


Where does it say that violating criminal laws pertaining to copyright
isn't theft?


What criminal laws? Where does it say that violating copyright law
isn't genocide or terrorism? So it must be both, right?

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Theft

regards,
alexander.
Jul 22 '05 #47

P: n/a
Peter van Merkerk posted:
If a kid only makes 50 cents a day it is unlikely that that kid:
1. Knows about C++;
The miracle of speech.
2. Wants to learn C++;
The miracle of wanting to learn.
3. Can afford the facilities needed (like a PC, electricity...etc).
Maybe the corrupt government is spending food money on computers.
And even if that kid knows about C++, wants to learn it and can for
some reason afford a PC and the other stuff needed, the C++ standard
would be of little or no use to him or her (or anyone else wanting to
learn C++).
Doesn't mean he still doesn't want it.
It seems that many people who don't have access to that document
greatly overrate its usefulness. For most people this document is more
a luxury than a necessity. Time and (in your case optionally) money is
usually better spend on a good C++ book.
We've already established that I wouldn't spend money on the document.
Should the kid not eat for 36 days? Or should the kid only eat half as
much and wait 72 days?


If the situation is that desperate obtaining a copy of the C++ standard
would be one of the last things on his or her mind, if at all.


Psychologist?
My perrogative: Why pay for something when you don't have to?


So you don't mind if I take your possessions?


When and where did I suggest that this?
If that is your prerogative why bother to learn something (like C++)
and/or work if you just take what you want?


I play with C++. It's my toy. I use it for fun.

The laws of physics, human instinct. I can't explain how my mind works, I
didn't design it.

-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #48

P: n/a

USA law doesn't apply in Ireland.
-JKop
Jul 22 '05 #49

P: n/a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Pete Becker wrote:

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

[lengthy quote describing elementary legal concept of mens rea snipped]

See the difference?

Where does it say that violating criminal laws pertaining to copyright
isn't theft?


What criminal laws?


The ones that the text you quoted was discussing.
Where does it say that violating copyright law
isn't genocide or terrorism?
It doesn't.
So it must be both, right?


No, it simply doesn't say. Hardly support for your position that
violating copyright laws isn't theft.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Jul 22 '05 #50

76 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.