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/Expert.C.Programming.pdf

 

[Alan Balmer]

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?

 

[Dave Vandervies]

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)

 

[Skarmander]

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]

: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.

 

[Walter Roberson]

: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

 

[Alan Balmer]

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 "contributory 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.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

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.

 

[Mabden]

zomg! As if it could get worse than that!

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?

or

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..."

 

[Alan Balmer]

zomg! As if it could get worse than that!


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.

It is in my mind.


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?

 

[Mabden]

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?

I'm not trying to encourage the practice. I don't think places like Hong
Kong and Israel are being ethical when they buy a copy of software or
music and make thousands of copies in order to profit from someone
else's work.

However the OP mentioned a site with a pdf of a supposedly good book.
Have you ever read a book using Acrobat?! It sucks. If someone reads a
portion of the book, and found it to meet their needs, they would
probably want a copy for their shelves, and to carry around to read on
the toilet, or whatever. I can't imagine Peter lost any ACTUAL sales
from this rip-off, and I would conjecture that if his book is any good,
it may generate a sale of this book, or his next one.

Hell, I write software, and I would like people to actually pay for it
and not spread it around without compensating me. I also understand that
there are certain people that will not buy my software no matter what.
If that person gets a copy of my software, plays around with it for a
week or two, then never uses it again then I don't feel like I lost a
sale. If they love it and keep using it, then perhaps they will want the
NEXT thing I put out, and if it is good enough, perhaps they will pay to
have an early copy, before it hits the Bittorrent sites (I wish...).

TO illustrate the point further (or "Beating a Dead Horse, part deux") I
will 'fess up about some game trading I once did with two friends. One
liked flight simulators and bought every kind of Flight Sim, F15, Red
Baron, etc. Another liked first-person shooters and bought all the Doom
series, Quake, Shadow Warrior (anybody remember Lo Wang?). I like puzzle
and strategy games like Civilization, Populous, War/StarCraft (anyone
remember Serf City?). We would all trade games that we bought, just
among ourselves, and none of us could afford to buy them all. But after
trying out the games, we would never really get our money's worth out of
the other guys' games. I HATED Red Baron with those stupid old planes
that would stall out, and it was really hard to play - but my buddy
thought the realism was what made it one of the best ever! Same with
Doom, I never got to the end, as I was hooked on Civ + expansion packs,
Warcraft, then Starcraft, etc. I had no time for the ones I didn't
prefer, and only tried them out for a few levels before abandoning
them - certainly not $50 worth of entertainment!

If I had never tried some of these programs, my life would not be any
different. And I would never have paid cash for those programs. So, did
anyone lose money from me playing level one of Quake?

 

[Alan Balmer]

However the OP mentioned a site with a pdf of a supposedly good book.
Have you ever read a book using Acrobat?! It sucks. If someone reads a
portion of the book, and found it to meet their needs, they would
probably want a copy for their shelves, and to carry around to read on
the toilet, or whatever.

Not when they're studying for a $1.50/hour job. Look to your long
reply to Keith in another thread for a reason not to encourage this.

I can't imagine Peter lost any ACTUAL sales
from this rip-off, and I would conjecture that if his book is any good,
it may generate a sale of this book, or his next one.

An old rationalization, often applied to theft of high-end software,
and followed by the declaration that "if they weren't trying to rip me
off and charging so much, I would buy it." No matter the
rationalization, it's still stealing.

 

[Default User]

Not when they're studying for a $1.50/hour job. Look to your long
reply to Keith in another thread for a reason not to encourage this.


An old rationalization, often applied to theft of high-end software,
and followed by the declaration that "if they weren't trying to rip me
off and charging so much, I would buy it." No matter the
rationalization, it's still stealing.

Right. If the author or publisher wants to put up samples or even a
full E-copy, that's their right. It's not anyone else's right to do so.
Whether or not it will be beneficial is immaterial.



Brian

 

[Mabden]

Doh! I knew my own words would turn on me, someday!

I never said it wasn't stealing, I just said it was stealing by people
who would never contribute money anyway. The distinction is that 1. You
are not getting money from these people today. 2. If they are exposed to
your Great Gift To Mankind they may BECOME a consumer Real Soon Now.

Right. If the author or publisher wants to put up samples or even a
full E-copy, that's their right. It's not anyone else's right to do so.
Whether or not it will be beneficial is immaterial.

True. I provide a "bare-bones" version of my software for trial. If you
buy the full copy you get more features. But if you give my full copy to
someone else, I lose. Sucks for me. But it is not worth the hassle to
have copy protection or a registration code that make the program work
as a trial if it's copied but "unlocks" if you type in some code, or
something. I'm writing other software, and maybe you'll buy that one
instead, or you'll move and not be in touch with that friend who gave
you first program. I can't make uncopyable software, so I deal with the
fact that some people steal when they can't afford to buy.

It's the cost of doing business - some people eat a grape at the
supermarket. You know who you are!