Walt Wayman wrote:
> I thought this thread had ended, and I don't want to get into this BS or
> stir stuff up, but I don't think that's entirely so. And this may well be
> putting too fine a point on it, but folks who copy or download or otherwise
> obtain software, music, or whatever, without paying for it are the very
> same folks who wouldn't ever buy it anyway, so although the creator has a
> right to be pissed, there's probably actually no money out of his pocket.
With all due respect, Walt, you have a glitch in your reasoning.
The thief got the author's product without paying for it, so it IS stealing
and the author IS harmed.
No, no physical "taking away" from the author, but his intellectual property
was stolen, and that's morally and legally wrong!
A bank robber who steals from a bank is excused because chances are excellent
he'd never borrow from them anyhow?
C'mon!
keith whaley
> I got my copy of Photoshop CS from my son after he no longer needed it.
> Otherwise, I wouldn't have it, because, IMO, it's not worth even half what
> it costs. If there's somebody here who thinks I "stole" it, then they can
> pucker up and ... Never mind.
>
> "Stealing" intellectual property may technically be theft, but it's not
> nearly the same as having your home burglarized, your car stolen, or even
> just broken into for the CDs, all of which I have had happen. There's a big
> difference between being the victim of a real crime and lying awake nights
> thinking maybe somebody got away with something you don't even know about
> and that didn't really cost you anyway.
>
> Now, if somebody takes your so-called intellectual property and claims it
> as their own or sells it, like the Chinese are so adept at doing, that's a
> whole 'nother thing and they should be shot.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Walt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|