> >To me, depriving the owner's revenue is NOT theft. > Sorry, but under both US and British law this is theft, a criminal act. > Directly equivalent to shoplifting, where you deprive the shop owner > of revenue by taking merchandise without paying for it. It's not directly equivalent to shoplifting. When you shoplift, the shop owner no longer has the merchandise that you took, and therefore can no longer sell it. You can copy software and the owner will still have that software to sell. Anyway, I'm talking about the moral definition of theft, not the legal definition. The US and British law can make anything a criminal. Besides, the law isn't written by wise and holy men so that we can say, "if it's the law, then it must be right." That's just plain ignorance. Removing tags from mattresses is a criminal act. Peeing on the sidewalk is against the law. The legality of the law does not always equate to what is right and wrong, because the law is immoral. The separation of church and state tells you that the government wants nothing to do with morality. Herry -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
