[first, re the OT discussion: how about "[OT]", to avoid confusing with
some 'real' subject with OT in it?]


At 10:52 PM 28-08-97 +0000, Mike Smith wrote:
>> I didn't think copying software was criminally illegal. ie: You can
>> be sued for copying it, but not charged with a criminal offense such
>> as theft. If I'm right (which is open to debate) then comparing it
>> to the theft of a car isn't appropriate.
>
>Morally equivalent.  Whether its a criminal or legal case would
>depend on the jurisdiction.

where do you take your 'moral equivalence' from? do you want to say that
the law is imoral (making a difference where 'morally' there is none)? is
it then 'moral' to obey to an 'imoral' law? one has to be careful on these
slippery slopes of 'moral'... (BTW, 'morals' has been one of the most
(ab)used excuses for almost _any_thing.)


>> It's more like borrowing a friends cassette tape and making a copy
>> for yourself. Or recording a song off the radio. I'm curious how
>> many people who are so gung-ho against copying software, have copied
>> audio.
>
>That depends on intent.  Cases you describe are illegal.  Copying a
>CD you own, for playing in your car cassette, is something I'd be
>comfortable with.  After all, I'm only using it in one place at any
>one time.  Akin to network software licensing, where you can run a
>program on a given number of workstations simultaneously.

are you _sure_ that nobody at home is listening to your CD while you're
listening to your copied tape? (you've got no 'network' license for your
music...)

>> Or went to the library and photocopied a specs sheet, or had one
>> faxed, when it should have been purchased.
>
>Crazy example.  Most manufacturers are *happy* for you to have their
>data, and will give you the books, CD's etc.  Do you feel guilty
>downloading pdf files?

I just had a look at a Motorola databook, and the only thing I saw was a
copyright notice "All rights reserved". Which, according to my
understanding of copyright, means that it is illegal to copy it unless you
have the permission of the copyright owner. Am I wrong here?

A different issue is that you assume they allow you to do so, and that they
are even happy that you do so, because it spreads the knowledge about their
products. Similarily someone could argue that one of the reasons for the
rise of Microsoft was that their software was probably among the most
copied ever, and so it's reasonable to ssume that every software
manufacturer wants to have the same success, and so all are happy to having
their software copied...

>For some purposes, photocopying copyrighted material is allowed.

yes, but probably not for business use.

>Most libraries have a sign describing 'Fair Dealing'

'fair'??

Ge