On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr <[email protected]> wrote: >> But playing language lawyer to try and dodge >> ownership of what you say -- that is bogus. > > I really dont know how I could have written a more neutral > statement about it originally or in my reply to you.
Again: If that wasn't your intended meaning, I apologize. > Jailbreaking is not theft. Your comparison to BitTorrent use > was disingenuous - for real. Obtaining a copy of pay software without paying isn't "theft" either -- it's copyright violation. Theft (larceny) is physical goods only, much to the dismay of the copyright cartels. (Note that I'm not arguing copyright violation should be morally or legally acceptable, but since this conversation seems to involve splitting hairs, I think the distinction is worth mentioning.) To be explict: I'm not saying jailbreaking is copyright violation, either. It *is* contrary to the terms of the license, but it's not copyright violation. So my analogy was poor, yes. Perhaps better would have been to compare it to discussion of methods of bypassing Windows Product Activation, on software I legally own. I've paid my money, and WPA is just getting in the way of my job -- it should be okay for me to bypass it, right? You'll all help me with that? ;-) (Come to think of it, Apple should have found a way to make jailbreaking also bypass their DRM. Then they'd have the RIAA on their side. The RIAA knows *all about* preventing one's customers from using one's own product. ;-) ) -- Ben
