On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 22:29, Nick Rout wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:04:21 +1300 > Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 2004, at 8:48 PM, Nick Rout wrote: > > > so how is "steal" morally different to "illegally use"
As I said before "illegal" just means against the law and it is the law that is being disputed. > > > > > Stealing something (physical) deprives the original owner of it's > > use/value. > > > > Illegally using it only deprives the owner while you are using it. It doesn't even do that. It only (potentially) deprives the owner of royalties. And that has not even been established. > > > > However, the "duplication" of software/data only deprives the original > > owner if it were established that a user of the duplicate would > > otherwise have purchased usage rights from the original owner. > > > > that last point is difficult to establish - would you buy windows if > you couldn't watch videos/dvds on linux? or would you buy a dvd player. > and a tv? I think that the onus should be on the person who claims that they are losing money to establish that there is a loss. Especially when prison terms etc are at stake. > > > (by the way that is not a particularly legalistic analysis, but we are > mainly talking morals i think) I agree. I would certainly *not* encourage anyone to break the law however. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Regards, Zane Gilmore (Linux nerd since 1998) ____________________________________________________ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.:- A.C.Clark ____________________________________________________
