I'm at a loss for words

[jefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

tilghman@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Tilghman Lesher) wrote:
>A better argument would be a comparison to the following scenario:

>	Are you justified in accusing a drifter of theft
>	for a car which I abandoned 5 years ago, and that
>	I no longer acknowledge that a) it exists, or
>	b) it is mine?

>	Similarly, can he be accused of theft of software
>	for which the company does not acknowledge either
>	knowledge or ownership?

>	Yes, if he steals the car while I still am using it,
>	it indeed is theft, and he should be punished for
>	that.  But after I've abandoned it?

This doesn't hold up either.  In this case you have given up your
rights of ownership to the car by abandoning it and therefore it no
longer belongs to anyone.

Software publishers that have not given up their rights to the
software they published, whether they acknowledge that it exists or
ever existed, still own those rights.

Taking something that no one owns is fine but taking something that
someone does own, whether they acknowledge that fact or not, is still
wrong legally and morally.