On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Ryan Minnig wrote: > Did you know that it is a federal offense to have a gun within 300ft of a > public school? No, the law just says "school". The BATF was talking about including "home schools" in the definition so you would never really know if your gun was banned - they might arrest you and then check for a homeschooler within the radius (and no, I am not making this up). > >Can you honestly say there is a difference? Using your logic; "If a > >person/company is too lazy or stupid to think through their" security > then it's ok to steal. > > Since I think your original logic is flawed, it is NOT stealing by > reverse engineering a copy that was given to you on CD by the author, or > by some other means authorized by the author(s). They don't hack, they create derivative works of existing copyrighted material :). There are, after all, fair use provisions in copyright. Or take the Microsoft Windows Tax. If you start up any new computer, there will be a window that says "If you don't agree to this license, simply return the software for a full refund". Yea, right. People have tried. A very few have succeeded after making a bother of themselves. Or the same on the envelope when it is bundled with a device (e.g. my zip drive came with windows and mac software, but I use only Linux; I did ask for a refund - just like it says on the envelope; I didn't get one). But it does lead to the question, if vendors have no intention of honoring their licenses, why should I feel any moral obligation? There may be a moral reason not to do something the author doesn't want done with his opus, but the law is a lot more specific and does allow some things and prohibits others.
