> > > > 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. > > This is simply untrue: non-commercial redistribution allow a lot of > scope for business, without trampling friendship, neighborlinesses and > community.
But that's not what you advocate. You advocate the wholesale copying and redistributing, however and whenever you feel like it. Your arguments have got absolutely nothing to do with neighbourliness and community, and everything to do with wanting to enjoy the fruits of someone elses work without giving anything in return. Usually when I say free, I am referring to freedom, not price. That's rubbish. Utter, utter rubbish. You copy a CD and give it to your mate, that's all about money - or rather it's all about not wanting to pay money. Your friend may think that CD's overpriced and so wouldn't pay the (say) ten quid asking price, but he wants it badly enough to get you to copy it. For free. It's not an intellectual freedom that you're arguing - it's a purely financial gain that you're after. He's quite likely to buy you a beer, or fix your dripping tap for nothing at some point in the future. > Making a copy for your friend is not stealing. Thinking of information > as property i a mirage. You're talking out of your arse, parroting fashionable views you've read elsewhere without an original thought or point of view. Your real worry is that if you have to pay for anything it'll affect the amount you can pay into your pension plan. Face it - you're just backing a system which ensures you can get the maximum return for the least input - but you're telling yourself that you're a footsoldier in some imaginary intellectual war. Get over it and pay for stuff like everyone else. Rich.
