The Junior/ Hiarcs Intifada

[bob]

Robert and Harvey,
I wrotte on "Rybka 4 is a mith" post, three days ago an absulute, normal and respectable post but it has desapeared. I am very confused about that. I have not understood what about that

What have been happening here in ?

Hello Pablo,

I think it was probably moved out of this forum, to a thread now called "Clone discussion" in the other forum. You can go there clicking

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ht=#336365

You could have found it back if you had clicked on your own profile, where there is a link to all your own posts.

Find all posts by Pablo Ignacio Restrepo

Eelco

That is one of the reasons I disagree completely with the moderation philosophy of the current group. Rather than move threads, simply add a post that says "this topic is more appropriate in XXX'. This group has to move things around which causes more than a little confusion. Why this is deemed to be the best way to handle things is way beyond my ability to understand. Probably because there is nothing to understand about it, it's not the way to do things.

[Don]

Comrades to play against capitalists ?????
What joke is this ???????
Money to play against " pro deo " entities ?????
What joke is this ???????
In my tournaments all Ippo/Robbo families are welcomed !
Serious !
I'm a democrat !
Belive me !



Yours,
Silvian

Who's the girl in your avatar?

I assumed Terry was a girl and this was a picture of Terry.

[lmader]

I hope she isn't one of those evil, dictatorial post-movers.

[Eelco de Groot]

Robert and Harvey,
I wrotte on "Rybka 4 is a mith" post, three days ago an absulute, normal and respectable post but it has desapeared. I am very confused about that. I have not understood what about that

What have been happening here in ?

Hello Pablo,

I think it was probably moved out of this forum, to a thread now called "Clone discussion" in the other forum. You can go there clicking

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ht=#336365

You could have found it back if you had clicked on your own profile, where there is a link to all your own posts.

Find all posts by Pablo Ignacio Restrepo

Eelco

That is one of the reasons I disagree completely with the moderation philosophy of the current group. Rather than move threads, simply add a post that says "this topic is more appropriate in XXX'. This group has to move things around which causes more than a little confusion. Why this is deemed to be the best way to handle things is way beyond my ability to understand. Probably because there is nothing to understand about it, it's not the way to do things.

Things get posted in the General Topics forum just to prove a point, out of annoyance with being declared a clone or clone developer or as a protest against the moderation policy. Maybe not by the original poster but it is easy to hijack a thread named "Rybka 4 is a myth". It is not a thread I followed but I believe Graham mentioned that at that time there were more things going on? It makes absolutely no point at least I don't see it just to add such a warning if you don't put a sanction on it in case it happens again. So what is right in such a case, because then just banning repeat posters, I assume you would prefer that Robert as the second step, will not be felt as non-interference either.

A thread with a title like that could be outright deleted but now that we have a forum for that, at least there is a place to discuss this if you want. Moving threads to a more suitable subforum is not unusual policy as forums go or else what is really the point of dividing a forum up in the first place?

Eelco

[Graham Banks]

I have no problem with deleted posts as long as the same standards apply to all here, regardless their opinion and regardless if they are moderators

We agree on something.

[Terry McCracken]

Comrades to play against capitalists ?????
What joke is this ???????
Money to play against " pro deo " entities ?????
What joke is this ???????
In my tournaments all Ippo/Robbo families are welcomed !
Serious !
I'm a democrat !
Belive me !



Yours,
Silvian

Who's the girl in your avatar?

I assumed Terry was a girl and this was a picture of Terry.

Don, that's really gay...I'll do the jokes, you Don the cover.

[Hood]

Hi,

if someone has bought Junior or Hiarcs programs how he could be not allowed (blocked) to use his version in the private tournament ?


rgds h

[Don]

Hi,

if someone has bought Junior or Hiarcs programs how he could be not allowed (blocked) to use his version in the private tournament ?


rgds h

You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.

It's superbly complicated by the fact that it is not easy to own something so easily copied. If you by Shredder for example is it really yours? It cannot be "really" yours otherwise you would be free to package it up and sell as many copies as you want.

Over the past few years (personal opinion warning here) I've come to the conclusion that there should be no such thing as copyright, patents or protection of ideas in any way that is decreed by law. And if you sell some software you should be allowed to "try" to protect it, but not in a legal way. If someone cracks your scheme, too bad. Of course that would completely change the economy and how things are done and if this was implemented it would cause huge disruption to the economy and jobs would be gained and jobs would be lost.

In such a system, you could still write software, but it would be difficult if not impossible to directly make money from the sale of such software. I'm sure anyone who makes money that way is going to believe this is clearly bad but it's difficult for me to believe that making artificial rules so that I can sell software is the right thing to do. Imagine that I sold seed to a farmer but stipulated that they could only plant the seed and use the resulting food products for their own personal consumption - and that they were forbidden to replant next year with new seed that resulted from the food product. It's just insane isn't it? Food is self replicating, but I am still free to sell it and it works.

However, that is NOT how it's currently done and I believe in playing by the rules, even if you don't like them.

I personally think the economy would completely adjust to such a major change - it would just be different, not worse and yes, you might make your money a little differently. I even think it would probably be better because the focus would be more on physical resources and services. The economy works in the presence right now of a massive amount of free software. And the rules would be incredibly intuitive, if you pay for something, you can do anything you want with it.

Note that even free software usually has a lot of artificial restrictions - any time you have to "agree to something" regarding the use of the software means it's not really yours.

[tomgdrums]

Hi,

if someone has bought Junior or Hiarcs programs how he could be not allowed (blocked) to use his version in the private tournament ?


rgds h

You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.

It's superbly complicated by the fact that it is not easy to own something so easily copied. If you by Shredder for example is it really yours? It cannot be "really" yours otherwise you would be free to package it up and sell as many copies as you want.

Over the past few years (personal opinion warning here) I've come to the conclusion that there should be no such thing as copyright, patents or protection of ideas in any way that is decreed by law. And if you sell some software you should be allowed to "try" to protect it, but not in a legal way. If someone cracks your scheme, too bad. Of course that would completely change the economy and how things are done and if this was implemented it would cause huge disruption to the economy and jobs would be gained and jobs would be lost.

In such a system, you could still write software, but it would be difficult if not impossible to directly make money from the sale of such software. I'm sure anyone who makes money that way is going to believe this is clearly bad but it's difficult for me to believe that making artificial rules so that I can sell software is the right thing to do. Imagine that I sold seed to a farmer but stipulated that they could only plant the seed and use the resulting food products for their own personal consumption - and that they were forbidden to replant next year with new seed that resulted from the food product. It's just insane isn't it? Food is self replicating, but I am still free to sell it and it works.

However, that is NOT how it's currently done and I believe in playing by the rules, even if you don't like them.

I personally think the economy would completely adjust to such a major change - it would just be different, not worse and yes, you might make your money a little differently. I even think it would probably be better because the focus would be more on physical resources and services. The economy works in the presence right now of a massive amount of free software. And the rules would be incredibly intuitive, if you pay for something, you can do anything you want with it.

Note that even free software usually has a lot of artificial restrictions - any time you have to "agree to something" regarding the use of the software means it's not really yours.

This is a very thoughtful comment and on the surface and there is not much in it to debate. I do however agree with copyrights. I am a musician and have written some of my own music. Creating anything is hard work. I want people to enjoy any work that I have created, and if they "share" it with a few friends that is even flattering. BUT, if someone should take a good chunk of something I have created and repackage and then give it away to ALL or try to sell it to ALL, it would be very deflating to me.

Right now you give Komodo away for free and that is your right. You have also stated you will sell Komodo MP and that is also your right. And that to me is the point. You created Komodo and should feel free to do it with it what you want. IF that includes trying to make some money off of it, you should be able to do that without worrying if someone is going to rip you off. It was your work that created it, not theirs!

My other big reason for backing copyright laws is the increasing feeling of entitlement that people have regarding music, books(digital), chess engines, other software, etc. etc.

People are really starting to believe that if something is "out there on the web" that gives them the inalienable right to "have it". This includes personal information and gossip! It is a dangerous and slippery slope that does not bode well for society as a whole.

Once again the creator should have the right to sell or give away. I get paid to play music, write music and teach music. I have been a volunteer teacher at a community music school for about 13 years. My choice! I also charge a nice fee for my normal private lessons. Again, my choice.

If I were to buy Komodo MP I would expect good product support for my money but I would also honor any and all wishes you had regarding copying the product.

Just my three or four cents.

[Don]

Hi,

if someone has bought Junior or Hiarcs programs how he could be not allowed (blocked) to use his version in the private tournament ?

rgds h

You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.

It's superbly complicated by the fact that it is not easy to own something so easily copied. If you by Shredder for example is it really yours? It cannot be "really" yours otherwise you would be free to package it up and sell as many copies as you want.

Over the past few years (personal opinion warning here) I've come to the conclusion that there should be no such thing as copyright, patents or protection of ideas in any way that is decreed by law. And if you sell some software you should be allowed to "try" to protect it, but not in a legal way. If someone cracks your scheme, too bad. Of course that would completely change the economy and how things are done and if this was implemented it would cause huge disruption to the economy and jobs would be gained and jobs would be lost.

In such a system, you could still write software, but it would be difficult if not impossible to directly make money from the sale of such software. I'm sure anyone who makes money that way is going to believe this is clearly bad but it's difficult for me to believe that making artificial rules so that I can sell software is the right thing to do. Imagine that I sold seed to a farmer but stipulated that they could only plant the seed and use the resulting food products for their own personal consumption - and that they were forbidden to replant next year with new seed that resulted from the food product. It's just insane isn't it? Food is self replicating, but I am still free to sell it and it works.

However, that is NOT how it's currently done and I believe in playing by the rules, even if you don't like them.

I personally think the economy would completely adjust to such a major change - it would just be different, not worse and yes, you might make your money a little differently. I even think it would probably be better because the focus would be more on physical resources and services. The economy works in the presence right now of a massive amount of free software. And the rules would be incredibly intuitive, if you pay for something, you can do anything you want with it.

Note that even free software usually has a lot of artificial restrictions - any time you have to "agree to something" regarding the use of the software means it's not really yours.

This is a very thoughtful comment and on the surface and there is not much in it to debate. I do however agree with copyrights. I am a musician and have written some of my own music. Creating anything is hard work. I want people to enjoy any work that I have created, and if they "share" it with a few friends that is even flattering. BUT, if someone should take a good chunk of something I have created and repackage and then give it away to ALL or try to sell it to ALL, it would be very deflating to me.

Right now you give Komodo away for free and that is your right. You have also stated you will sell Komodo MP and that is also your right. And that to me is the point. You created Komodo and should feel free to do it with it what you want. IF that includes trying to make some money off of it, you should be able to do that without worrying if someone is going to rip you off. It was your work that created it, not theirs!

My other big reason for backing copyright laws is the increasing feeling of entitlement that people have regarding music, books(digital), chess engines, other software, etc. etc.

People are really starting to believe that if something is "out there on the web" that gives them the inalienable right to "have it". This includes personal information and gossip! It is a dangerous and slippery slope that does not bode well for society as a whole.

Once again the creator should have the right to sell or give away. I get paid to play music, write music and teach music. I have been a volunteer teacher at a community music school for about 13 years. My choice! I also charge a nice fee for my normal private lessons. Again, my choice.

If I were to buy Komodo MP I would expect good product support for my money but I would also honor any and all wishes you had regarding copying the product.

Just my three or four cents.

I perfectly understand your arguments and as I already stated, I expect to play by the rules which means if I decide to sell Komodo I also feel it's my "right" by law to protect my interest.

I don't think the philosophy I layed out really works with society structured exactly the way it is now - it would represent major changes.

It does not come down to whether you have a right to profit from your creative works, it comes down to whether you have a right to artificially and arbitrarily make unatural rules to ensure that you can profit from them. You basically have to set up all kinds of infrastructre to support this, a system of punishments, laws, etc.