>> ... etc. But failure to recognise at least SOME forms of software copying 
>> as
>> theft leads to an interesting perspective on things.


> With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is not
> theft.

You can black board your lines 100 times, or 1000, if you think it will make 
the point clearer.

I'll just repeat mine once more, with a *little* more emphasis added.

>> ... etc. But failure to recognise at least ***SOME*** forms
>  of software copying as theft leads to an interesting perspective on 
> things.

ie if one believes that it is not ever possib;e to commit theft by copying 
software, then one's perspective on other things will be, at least 
interesting, Also, a person who believes this from the cockles of their 
heart will probably also be the sort of person that one should be wary of 
formong a trust based relationship with in other areas. I am unable to speak 
for present company, not having as yet the reqired 30%+ or so data required 
for making a good decision.

But, in some cases

> copyright infringement is not theft.

is a canard / porky / evasion / untruth / damn lie.
As is

> copyright infringement is not a crime.

although "crime" can be defined as required to make this vanishingly hard to 
make so.


> also,
> piracy (related to software/music) requires redistribution of (and
> likely requires charging for) said software, not just usage of it.

Not relevant to the main point, and not *necessarily* true.

> Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
> is piracy.

Humpty Dumpty definitions at work. ie "pirating" is in itself a euphemism 
which has an inexact meaning and which can be somewhat bent to one's will 
and purpose.

__________

Cutting to the chase, to some extent:

IANAL, or anywhere near.

Individual A produces a copyright work. Be it literary, software or 
whatever.
Individual A contracts with individual B, who signs a legally binding 
contract, to transfer a COPY of said work from A to B in exchange for a 
consideration AND subject to certain restrictions *which are agreed to by B* 
in the contract.

If B transfers a copy of the work to C in abrogation of the terms of the 
contract, whether for a consideration or not, then (i) B & C are parties to 
theft. Also, by at least some sensible definitions (ii) a crime has been 
committed. What C DOES with the product after the transfer does not alter 
the basic facts.

If you find somebody who disagrees violently with these facts, especially 
the first one, then unless you are in reasonably good agreement with them on 
this point, you may wish to consider the widom of doing trust-based business 
with them .

FWIW - I am not saying what I think of such theft, whether it is abhorrent 
or whether it is more or less acceptable in various circumstances - just 
that it IS theft. It corresponds to depriving somebody of their rightful 
capital without payment of due consideration. Some may agree with this but 
consider that such deprivation is sometimes OK, often OK, or even perhaps 
invariably laudable.

It seems to me, but I may well be wrong, that the arrangement above forms 
part of the foundation of the capitalist system and that acceptance of its 
abrogation is an indication of ones disagreement with at least some of the 
basic tenets of capitalism. I may, I say again, be wrong, of course :-).


    Russell


> So, in order for there to be theft involved somewhere, you would have to
> remove the software entirely from the owner's premises and deny them
> access to it. Downloading, copying, etc. is not stealing, at worst it is
> copyright infringement, and is a civil issue.

> I in no way imply that copyright infringement, theft, murder, etc. is
> OK, only I want people to stop being steamrollered by massive publicity
> drives suggesting that downloading music, software, etc. is theft. It is
> not.

> Get your facts straight.

Aye.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist