On 30/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/29/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Monday 29 October 2007 18:47, Dave Crossland wrote: > > ... > > > Asking people to agree not share with friends and betray their > > > community is evil :-( > > > > No, it's not. > > > Yes it is. Not sharing is a bad thing. If I had a bag of sweets, and > didn't hand them round my friends, that would be wrong. If I'd bought a CD > of the new Reynolds Girl's "Best Of..." compilation (contender for shortest > album in the world), and a friend asked if he could listen to it, I'd have > to be really mean to say no. > > That's sharing, and as I always tell my three year old daughter, it's good > to share. > > However, Dave doesn't mean sharing. Dave means stealing and > redistributing for free. When he says sharing, Dave always means stealing. > Dave wants everything for nothing. > > > > Rich. >
I agree that Dave is in the wrong, but please stop equating copyright infringement to theft. In the latter someone has lost something tangible, in the former the original owner still has the thing that's been "stolen". And don't give me the whole loss of potential sales thing, as there is no garuntee that people who commit copyright infringement would otherwise buy the product that they've copied. Vijay.
