apptech wrote:
>>> ... 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.
>
>   

[snipped]

Russell, for a person of otherwise unmitigated insight, you have been 
duped. You have been suckered by the various 'interested parties' in to 
believing lies.

In this case you are simply wrong.

Theft (larceny), crime, and copyright are all things that are defined by 
laws. The respective laws typically have very tight definitions of these 
terms. Dictionaries typically closely represent the legal definition of 
these terms, but not always. Laws are not morals, though there is 
sometimes a correlation.

While I may have been a bit asinine in my attempt to correct your 
misconceptions, that does not mean that your misconceptions are not 
misconceptions.

You are simply wrong, and worse, you are spreading mistruths as fact and 
hence perpetuating the confusion in a legal area already polluted with 
fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

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

I counter that it is not possible to steal software by copying it.

Further, I challenge you to find a single instance in any legal 
jurisdiction where someone simply making copies of any software will be 
charged with any crime. Where criminal charges have been laid it is for 
other details in the case that do not include the act of copying software.

I respectfully request that you refrain from spreading fear, uncertainty 
and doubt until you can substantiate your arguments with fact, not 
hearsay and opinion.

While breaching copyright licenses is wrong, it is not a crime.

Rolf

P.S. as a side-bar, did you know that no-one has ever been found guilty 
of copyright infringement? This is because 'guilt' is only ever 
determined in criminal cases, and copyright is never a criminal case, 
but a civil case. In civil cases a jury/judge may find a defendant 
liable, but never guilty.

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