Rich or poor, it pays to have money.
Wrong, or right, you only live once.
And when these things get into the esoteric, and by downloading photoshop, I'm
preventing some guy relaxing in his bathing suit at his home office from mailing
off the monthly brand new Corvette payment, I realize that just because society
has
decided lower income equals lower-level life, (or else the rich wouldn't have
anyone to have a better life than), doesn't mean I won't enjoy the fun
image-making
travails of that program, or others. However anyone may flame me here, I will
not
see it as the same as walking up to some software guy, and ripping his original
&
only copy disk of the new whizzbang program he just wrote out of his hands.
Happily for those wanting to keep the social classes as they are ("should be")
..... I didn't post any web addresses for that program.
Larry (disgusting to all) :)
Jim Couch wrote:
> Interesting distinction Andrew, but it is wrong. In most countries (including
> the US) copyright violations are defined as the theft of intellectual
> property.
> It really is theft. Theft is taking something from someone without permission.
> It has little to do with their ability to still use it. Intellectual and
> artistic properties are somewhat different from physical property, which is
> why
> we have copyright laws. Identity theft is a similar thing, when you steal
> someone's identity, they can still use it, but it is THEFT and is, in fact a
> felony in most places which is taken very seriously.
> I am continually amazed at the false logic of folks that maintain something is
> overpriced if THEY cannot afford it, and by extension that they have the right
> to obtain it illegally. Do not make the mistake of assuming because copyright
> LAW is difficult to enforce, that it does not exist. Do not make the mistake
> of
> assuming it is not truly theft.
> While there is a tendency to look the other way when individuals steal
> software
> for their own personal use, there are folks who have copied and re-sold
> software who have had to pay large fines or even done jail time. Illegally
> copying software is indeed theft, to say nothing of just plain wrong.
>
> Jim Couch
>
> Andrew Dacey wrote:
>
> > On 4/26/01 12:42 AM, "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > Why don't I just email you my address. You can drop by and pick up any
> > > Zuikos that you want -- no charge.
> > >
> > > Course, I'll call the cops, since that's stealing too.
> > >
> > > You must not be in the software business. Those of us that are appreciate
> > > the concept of stealing software. I don't know what you do, but I'll bet
> > > that you'd object if we all asked you to give it away for free.
> >
> > It's not theft. That's not saying what the morality/legality of copying
> > software is, it's just not theft. Theft is taking something from someone
> > else so that you have it and they no longer do. Since it's possible to make
> > a copy of the software (ie, not take it from you), it's not theft. Now it is
> > possible to steal the CDs that the software is on...
> >
> > Anyways, in most parts of the world, it is a copyright violation, which is
> > something very different. The software industry likes to perpetuate the term
> > "theft" because it has a more insidious tone than "copyright violation"
> > does.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
> > frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.tildefrugal.net/
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|